User talk:Carolinewarrick/sandbox

Caroline's Peer Review
Fifhauseal (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would recommend finding additional sources, having this large a paragraph with one citation at the end could raise red flags on Wikipedia
 * Spell check and decided if "the" is part of artwork title and should therefore be capitalized or is not part of title and shouldn't be in italics
 * Good, highly detailed information about the exhibition

Caroline's 2nd Peer Review
-The description of the work physically is detailed, but it may be helpful to readers to include the meaning as well. You could possibly do this by structuring both of the series in the exhibition the same in the text. What is it-Physical description-Conceptual ideas-How it fits in the exhibition?
 * Great description of the exhibition, if I were to add anything I would add more of the conceptual ideas of the work in the exhibition.


 * I would also suggest adding more sources in this paragraph, in order to get multiple viewpoints.

-About the artist's exhibition, then split up the series into detail
 * Again, it may be beneficial for readers to have some sort of visual space between both the series in the exhibition. This would allow you to include more details of each series of work without adding confusion and distraction to the text.

Peer review by Ava Gleason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avagle (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Caroline's 3rd Peer Review

 * This looks like a good description of this exhibition, which is a good starting place.


 * Maybe discuss something along the lines of how these works are gendered or about the importance of gender.


 * Possibly add more detail about the specific works themselves, or more about the impact that they had.

AndrewCarlevale (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)