User:Wendi Orozco Salazar/User:DelinquoSavvy/Marcos Zapata/Wendi Orozco Salazar Peer Review

{| class="wikitable"
 * Guiding questions:
 * Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article lead is very straightforward within the sentences? Giving the majority clear instructions of who the artist is and what they did.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes they include description in correlated sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is not overly detailed

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes everything fits with one another
 * Is the content added up-to-date?it is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Only content I can think of is adding more about the culture included in the works, besides foods.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  The article helps give readers knowledge of the unrepresented artist and details of their work.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added was straight to the point and professional
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No points were bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Everything was well executed however I would like there to be a bit more information on the art work “El Rey Salomón (King Solomon)”. A suggestion might also be highlighting Vermillion, as a non painter I didn't know what this was.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No editor does a great job of being neutral throughout the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All sources are reliable
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, they all reflect the same information. I couldn't access the first link to verify all of them, but based of the other links that all trace back to what is typed on the article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes some sources go into more detail about sources that others, they all entail detail about the artist.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are current, the latest sources dating December 1, 1995
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors are all different  and diverse.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Marcos-Zapata/53D021B2878B17AC   death information

https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Marcos-Zapata/53D021B2878B17AC

https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Marcos-Zapata/53D021B2878B17AC/Biography current action of work


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

All links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? All written content is easy to read, and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  In selected works I would maybe rewrite “oil painting that is credited to Marcos”
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes everything is broken down into proper sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, helps understand the work made by artist
 * Are images well-captioned?  Yes gives detail
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?  Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes doesn't feel overwhelming.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes sources are reliable
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? All sources relate back to the article.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes this article has different headers for different sections including highlighted areas that give readers more information about selected sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? All links are available, sections or keywords are also highlighted as well to help the reader understand background information  without overwhelming the article with lots of context in formation.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the article feels complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of this article is the tone, as for the content added it would be the biography section.
 * How can the content added be improved?

Something that might help improve this article is adding more information on what was the culture added into the artist paintings over than foods in the areas. You could include things like color if they played a role,or if the culture had important symbols that were added to these paintings.

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources
Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.
 * }

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)