User talk:Stevengordillo/Rebeca Méndez

http://www.rebecamendezdesign.com/

https://www.cooperhewitt.org/channel/rebeca-mendez-selects/ https://www.aiga.org/2017-aiga-medalist-rebeca-mendez https://dma.ucla.edu/faculty/profiles/?ID=32 https://www.aspenideas.org/speakers/rebeca-mendez https://artsinsociety.com/about/history/2016-conference/rebeca-mendez https://www.andersonranch.org/in-residence-rebeca-mendez/ https://benddesign.scalehouse.org/speakers/rebeca-mendez/ https://www.sfmoma.org/artist/Rebeca_M%C3%A9ndez/

https://www.oneclub.org/hall-of-fame/-bio/rebeca-mendez

https://www.calfund.org/nonprofits/featured-funds/fva/2010-gallery/rebeca-mendez/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/24/the-mandarin-duck-and-avian-art-at-the-cooper-hewitt http://www2.artcenter.edu/80years/voices/mendez.php  quoteeeee

https://www.bruinwalk.com/professors/rebeca-mendez/desma-159c/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4740676/

https://aigaaix0m5kinte.dxcloud.episerver.net/design-journeys-rebeca-mendez

Peer Review
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (Stevengordillo) Link to draft you're reviewing: Rebeca Méndez# Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation

The lead seems to be very effective and updated.

The lead does include a concisely sentence that describes the article topic.

Yes the lead does include a brief description of the article.

Not that I see

The lead gets straight to the point.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content evaluation

Yes the content is relevant to the topic.

yes content seems to be added up to date.

Personally what I would do is add a little more but that's me.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation

Yes the content seems to be neutral.

No.

the viewpoints are both.

The content seems to persuade the readers when they read the article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation

yes it looks like it

the sources are thorough

the sources seem to be current

Ya some of them do not all though.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation

Its concise i think

the content does not have grammatical errors

The content is broken down into sections in order to understand the topic

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added 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? Images and media evaluation

NO

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? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Overall evaluation

The article seems to be pretty complete.

To give more information on the topic.

Maybe go more def into the topic itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokerridd101 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)