User talk:Jess Ishikawa/sandbox

Peer review by Megan Jones

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Jess Ishikawa Link to draft you're reviewing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jess_Ishikawa/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, the lead has been updated including more information than the original article.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, it briefly mentions that articles major sections.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, but only because it is unfinished, I think the lead has a good base of information that will hopefully continue on throughout the rest of the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think it is concise, I think the information about the expert from the J. Paul Getty museum could either just be cited after the artists he states, or saved for a different section in the article.

Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes Is the content added up-to-date? yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would suggest some more main headings added to the outline to get started. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe if youre going to quote someone on the artists contributions, include others opinions as well. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no, need more sources Are the sources current? yes Check a few links. Do they work? yes Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No added sections yet Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes Are images well-captioned? yes Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, youre on the right track! What are the strengths of the content added? Good, concise, necessary information added to lead. How can the content added be improved? Some info could be saved for the other main headings instead of being in the lead. Overall evaluation

Jess, I think you have a good start to your article. I can see the information you have provided unfolding well as the rest of the article progresses. I would suggest maybe a few more main headings to give the overall article better structure and organization. Also, I think that your article needs some more sources that are up to date and reliable.

Overall though, I think you have a good idea in your head and a plan of what you intend to do. I like how you added more miniature pictures onto the article, and your lead is written well with more information than the original article.