User talk:Hsherrard/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Pop Art

This article stays on topic all the way through, with consistent points. There are a few names with links that do not have an article attached. If the article isn't written yet, then it probably shouldn't be linked, although I guess it lets editors know to write the article. It remains neutral, mentioning both sided of the discussion if pop art is the movement before postmodern art or early postmodern artwork. Not all of the sources are linked but those that are and I checked worked okay. In the talk page one user seemed very upset about the US getting credit for Pop Art and said that it was completely a product of Britain, another questions the Japanese and German artists if they were actually Pop or not. One edited thinks the article is bias towards Warhol since his name and work was referenced a lot; but other than that, the posts were just about grammar issues. Hsherrard (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that not all sources for an article will be linked, because many of them may not be online (e.g., books) CWLivingston (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Felipe Pantone
This is a C class article. There is just a few sentences for each section. In addition to this, no one has posted in the talk page for this article. There aren't any obvious biases, and there are only a few sources for the entire article. It would be a good one to edit and add to, but it might be a big task to take on. Hsherrard (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Lady Pink
This article is very short, with only a general overview of her life and work. The information on Lady Pink ends in the 80s or 90s. There are a fair amount of sources for the length of this article. There is a lot more information on her personal life and the reasons why she started getting into graffiti, but hardly anything on her work. There is tons of room for improvement, but might be too challenging. Hsherrard (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Maggie Hance
Lead From your article it is clear that Do Ho Suh is an important sculptor and installation artist. I would say that yes, you have your most important information in the lead. Structure Your article is well organized, I would just suggest adding more in the future. Such as, more to the life section, possibly something about his influences, and a career section. In the first section of your article I would suggest replacing “He’s” with “He is”, just so it sounds a little more formal. I don’t see any grammar issues, but I think it would be nice to switch up your starter words for each sentence. You tend to repeat “He” and “Suh” a lot as a sentence opener, which can be repetitive. Balance Nothing seems long, if anything sections could be longer than they are now, but I know it’s a work in progress and I’m sure there is a lot more information to add. Everything as of now seems factual with no specific point of view. Neutrality Your article is very neutral and has no phrases that suggest that you are being biased. Your article is also not negative or positive, you do a great job of staying completely neutral. Sources From what I can see there are no statements that are unsourced. Your sources look reliable, although it does look like most are from the Wall Street Journal, so maybe you could aim for more of a variety.

1 You do a great job putting the most important information in the lead paragraph, however, I think your early life paragraph could use some more information. One thing I would work on is the exhibition paragraph. It seems like one long run on sentence right now. Maybe you could split some of the sentences up and explain some of the most important exhibitions? 2 Right now I would just work on expanding the paragraphs you have and then adding more. Because this is a work in progress, I’m sure that you plan on doing so. Other than that and the exhibition paragraph, there isn’t anything huge I would suggest. 3 I realize after reading your article that my partner and I need to still fix our lead paragraph, so the way that you wrote yours was very helpful to me. Maggiehance (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Maggie Hance

Elements of the article
1.) A lead section that is easy to understand:

Your lead is clean and easy to understand. It highlights his education and why he is a prominent contemporary sculptor and installation artist. It is nice how you used multiple sources in your lead to show right off the bat that you are pulling from several reputable sources. One question I do have is, does he already have a Wikipedia page started? If so maybe provide a link in your sandbox so others can compare and contrast what is already on his page and what you are writing.

2.) A clear structure:

The structure is clear and understandable, but I suggest that as you do more research and add more sections. Maybe elaborate on his personal life, education, early career, and/or awards/recognitions. As far as the exhibition's sections go, I would suggest finding which one(s) were the most influential in his career and elaborate on those specific ones more, what it was that he exhibited, and why they were so important.

3.) Balanced coverage:

The exhibitions section is the largest, and understandably so, but I would suggest adding another section about his career that encompasses information other than when and where he has exhibited.

4.) Neutral content:

There is no bias that I am able to pick up and the information is not presented in a positive or negative tone, good job.

5.) Reliable sources:

The sources that you used do seem reliable, but I do suggest trying to find more.

Questions and answers
1.) What does the article do well?

You present the information in a very neutral manner and provide a variety of sources throughout your article. It is also nice that you have already taken the time to go through your article and add a lot of internal links to other Wikipedia pages for the reader to continue their research. Your lead is clean and to the point and highlights all the information one needs when taking their first glance at the article.

2.) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I would increase the number of sources that you have as well as increase the variety of types of sources as only one is a printed book and the rest are websites. As I mentioned above, I really think you could add a lot of information regarding his early career, which exhibitions were the most important to his career, as well as his career outside of exhibiting (all assuming that this information is available to you in your research).

3.) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

You are on a very good start and I believe that you have a good feeling of being able to write in "Wikipedian" and presenting reliable information in a neutral manner. Just continue to grow and expand the article and add more sections to differentiate.

Hhorn117 (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)