User talk:Amandaaliz/article draft

Serafina Smyth Peer Review
Lead:

I would follow Prof Hanley's advice about how you will be improving the existing article. I really do enjoy this topic and I cannot wait to see the end product, I liked the way your article began.

Structure:

I would definitely suggest that you create more sections in order to break up some of the information, but other than that it seems good so far.

Balance/Neutrality:

I feel that your article is very balanced and neutral. You don't seem to have any bias in the topic, which is really helpful as an example to me for my own article.

Sourcing:

Good sourcing, I like how it is incorporated already into your article. I would include just a bit more sources to make article stronger.

Overall, I feel that you have a very solid base so far, and that you will definitely have a good article by the end of this project. Serafinaxsmyth (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead - Could be shortened, with most of the information in a new section. Structure - Structured well, chronologically. Makes sense. Balance/Neutrality - Very balanced. Nothing seems skewed to any certain viewpoint. Sourcing - Good sourcing. Already incorporated into draft, and lots of links to other pages.

This is a really well written article. Obviously really well balanced and well researched. Maybe add more sections in to break up the information a little more, but that's the only thing I could see that needs improvement.

Kelc019 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead
I do feel satisfied that I know the importance of Gherardi, but I think you could include some of his most famous works in the first paragraph of the lead (maybe even the first or second sentence). Nothing seems to be missing or redundant.

Structure
It appears you haven't yet broken the article up into sections yet, but I can see that you have a "history" or "early life" section ready to go. All you need to do is make the headers. Maybe you could add a section on the reception of his works? Nothing seems to be unnecessary or off-topic and the article is clearly written.

Balance/Neutrality
I think the phrase "extraordinarily inventive" could come off as a bit biased or subjective. Other than that, the article does not jump to conclusions or lean in one direction or opinion. It feels very neutral and historical.

Sourcing
This is the portion that needs the most work. I see a ton of links to other wiki pages (which is great) but I don't see any source list other than the exhibition and web gallery links. Make sure to source everything! Dates, facts etc.

Overall
The article does a good job of explaining who the artist is and what works he has created. The lead is very concise and summarizes the artist efficiently. Your biggest needs are sources and sections. I plan on linking to a ton of other wiki pages like you did. I love falling down wiki rabbit holes.

Peer Review - Sophie Liang
Lead: I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic. I think it would be better to include a life and career or background section before listing his work. Nothing else seems to be missing.

Structure: More sections can be added to do a break down of the topic. You can add talk a little bit about the history and how his work has made an impact in today's society. Other than that, everything seems to be clearly written.

Balance/Neutrality: I agree with Mason. I think "extraordinarily inventive" can be seen as biased. Everything else seems balanced and neutral.

Sources: The article needs sourcing and citation.

Overall: The article does a very good job introducing the topic and his work. It is clearly written and written from a neutral point of view. The biggest and most important thing that needs work is the sourcing. I plan to add an "external links" section to my topic.

Sophiiquee (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)