User:Ziggy9alm/Kimsooja/Poppyprint Peer Review

Dabin, this is a promising start, but still incomplete. I am not seeing any evidence of you responding to the peer reviews or revising after the peer review sessions, and it is not clear how / where you are making your own contributions to the existing article. I know that this semester has been difficult and I applaud you for making it through this far! Just a bit more to go. It seems like you should engage with more sources on Kimsooja and clearly identify which areas in the current article could be expanded or improved. Please let me know if you need additional help.

Sources: As I have said repeatedly, per Wikipedia policy, anything on an artist's own website CANNOT be used as a reliable source (you could provide a link to the page, but do not base your article on its contents!). I am surprised to see the limited number of sources, given that Kimsooja has exhibited her work extensively and is also discussed across a number of English-language publications (as seen in the current Wikipedia page). The CCS library also has her monographs - I believe I have recommended the CCS library as a good resource for contemporary artists. Please make sure that you have at least FIVE reliable sources. The books assigned for our class (such as Korean Art from 1953) also includes discussions on Kimsooja. These recent publications on Korean art are not yet on the current Wikipedia page, so that could be your contribution as well.

Lead:

As one of your reviewers has commented, the lead should be more concise. I noticed that the current Wikipedia page also does not have a lead, so you should create one. Look at this page as example (suggested by Wikipedia officers as a good sample):

Dorothea Lange

The current "lead" also has a lot of overlap with the current Wikipedia article (but with less info, such as her date of birth, or different spelling, such as Taegu vs Daegu). Please make clear what your own contributions are here. Since you are editing or adding to an existing article, you really need to clearly indicate which ones are your contributions!

* As for the rest of the article, I think the writing is quite clear, but again, you need to clearly indicate what contributions you are making to the preexisting article - I am seeing some overlaps here (such as the discussion of bottari). Is the current article missing a recent body of work (or an earlier series), for example? Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this further - but perhaps after you have consulted the full range of sources available to you.

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.)