User:Zeezee7/Lee Quede/Ahmajorette Peer Review

Currently the Lead is very focused on the artist's brother, which is helpful contextually, but would be better placed further down in the article. A better lead might focus more on a concise summary of his life as an artist. ( I do agree with this feedback. One of the reasons I talked about his brother was because there was not that much of infomation about Lee Quede's early life. I can work on that more and make it more focused on him).

small typo, put a space between "the" and "white" in the first sentence oof the activities section. (Thank you! I noticed it as well. Good catch).

the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section could be more clear. (Do you mean in the terms of its grammar or expanding its information so it can be more clear? Either way, I think that is a good summary of what he has done, especially if I am putting it in the Lead Section).

doubled phrase "throughout his life" in last sentence of activities section. (Thank you!)

For organizational clarity, you might change the heading "activities" to something more specific. ( Thank you for mentioning this. I am actually thinking to change the heading "activities" to "Art Movements").

There are a few sentences that have typos or are somewhat incomplete. I would go back and read it aloud to catch sentence fragments. (I will check on its grammar. Thank you!"

You might consider adding a section to this about his death and legacy because the information in the last few sentences is a bit removed from its current place under Lee Quede and Hyangtosaek. (That is such a good point. I would add a section about his death and legacy).

The article does a good job of maintaining neutrality.

Currently you only have two sources, so it might be good to get a few more. A nice addition could be where is work is now and its legacy. (I am planning to add new sources and add more into it).

Are there any images available to add?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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