User talk:KeiraDig/Alla Nazimova

Hey! I finished the peer review. You can find it on the peer review page or below. General info Whose work are you reviewing? KeiraDig Link to draft you're reviewing: KeiraDig/Sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I think so because her plan is to more-so revise the wording, information, and citations, not the actual focus or structure of the article. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead's first sentence does include general and concise information about the actress. I would maybe add one more thing about the impact of her accomplishments. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a table of contents that outlines everything. I think that removing some details in the Lead and replacing them with more general statements that relate to the article as a whole would be beneficial. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All of the information in the Lead appears to be covered in the article itself. Some of the facts included seem either opinionated or exaggerated (ie. "outlandish parties"). I would concentrate on making the tone more professional. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is generally concise. Honestly, I think that some of the information is a little too detailed and should just be included in the content of the article or replaced by more general statements. Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? I think that some of the content revolving her personal life is not as relevant as her achievements in the film industry and makes her sexuality and interests seem sort of performative instead of representing her sexuality as a characteristic of herself. Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date as the wording and sources represent modern research. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would include more content about her film career. As of right now, it only really lists her achievements instead of describing the significance or what the achievements actually were. Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? The content added is relatively neutral as it does not paint her life in a particularly positive or negative light, and it does not try to push a certain political standpoint. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some of the comments on her "wild" personal life seem a little over represented because it takes away from her accomplishments and focuses more about rumors. I do think it is important to talk about her sexuality as she could have been impactful to the LGBTQ+ community, but it makes it seem that her sexuality caused her party life. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content represents a neutral stand point. Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, her plan included adding reliable secondary sources of information as the original article was missing a lot of needed citations. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources added were peer reviewed or from academic institutions. Are the sources current? Yes, all of the links are current. Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links added work. Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is very well written and easy to read. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any spelling or grammatical errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is generally well organized; however, I think that some of the categories could be combined. For example, I think that the Friends and Relations section should be included under Private Life instead of an independent section to better the flow of the article. Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

I do not think that she is planning on adding images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images that were already included in the article did appear to be cited correctly, laid out in a pleasing way, and captioned correctly. Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the content added has improved the quality of the article as she focused on the citations, the wording, and the information included to ensure that the article represents her in a neutral light. What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths include the new citations for the missing information, the fact that she is planning on removing a lot of the bias in the article, and the wording that she is changing to improve the clarity of the information in the article. How can the content added be improved? I think that the author could also change the structure of the article to ensure that it has a flow to help the reader understand her as a person and her life. McKenzie Funk (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)McKenzie Funk