User talk:Tug47650/sandbox

Amrprix (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)AMRPRIX (Alice Price) Lead: The length is fine, but the equation of Secession with Impressionism I am not certain is valid and is not really supported in the rest of the text. This was already there. You will need to do a really good edit, checking for flow. Some of the missing information might be from German sources cited in the original article--try running them through Google Translate and see what happens.

You can see on the talk page that this was written in German and then translated. You might need to read it aloud or be more careful about copy.

You have been quite thorough in the history, but we need a better sense of the art. You acknowledge that you need more/better sources. I used Google Scholar "berlin secession" and Modernism. Here are 4 that I know are worthwhile: Berman, Patricia G. "The invention of history: Julius Meier-Graefe, German modernism, and the genealogy of genius." Studies in the History of Art 53 (1996): 91-106. Joan, Emily D. Bilski Sigrid Baushinger, Sigrid Bauschinger, Joan Rosenbaum, and Exhibition Berlin Metropolis. Berlin metropolis: Jews and the new culture, 1890-1918. Univ of California Press, 1999. [Deshmukh, Marion F. "The Berlin secession, modernism and its enemies in imperial Germany." (1991): 309-310. One of the leading sources] Forster-Hahn, Françoise. "Modernism and Politics in the German Empire." Oxford Art Journal 28, no. 3 (2005): 482-484. [A pretty good writer] You have done an admirable job tackling this article. You need some more research, as you acknowledge, and also to remember that one of your tasks--according to the talk page--is making sure that the English reads well and that it is proofread. Amrprix (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2019 THIS IS KIERA: (UTC)kierafitz Peer review This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Tug47650 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tug47650/sandbox 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 I think the lead is clear, well written, and contains solid content. I also think it should be longer to properly reflect the information that will follow in body of the text. It is definitely concise, just needs a little meat to it.

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 All of the content seems to be pretty relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. The one thing that really stood out to me was that because the Secession was composed of multiple artists, it seems like the voices of these artists are missing. Because of this the Berlin Secession is coming across as an empty idea. I think adding some quotations from the participating and founding artists about their hopes and wishes for the secession will help to add context to the movement.

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 All of the content seems fairly neutral, although it may be helpful to just reread everything and try to make everything stated in as academic delivery as possible just to present all content as matter of fact. (I feel like this always helps me stay neutral and just sounds smarter and more reliable in general).

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 I saw and recognize your note on the difficulty of finding sources for your topic. Having only two sources does seem a little bare, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to find more.

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 There were some minor grammatical errors or just instances where the syntax of a sentence made it feel a bit clunky. The article is laid out in a logical flow, I would just recommend separating the body paragraphs with the new title sections instead of having it laid out like an outline. I would maybe recommend either in the beginning or the end of the body talking about the secessions links to the multiple other artist movements we have learned about in class.

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 I know the original article for the Berlin Secession has multiple images, but I don't believe you have added any and I think they would greatly enhance your draft.

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 I think what you have so far is really good and at this point just needs some more content and reformatting. Once you have more content to add I look forward to seeing the article have more sub-topics within the body that profiles some of the secessions most notable and driving-force artists. Adding more image content (possibly some of the promotional works we looked at in class) will help the article greatly.

Peer Review Response: Thank you so much for the feedback (UTC)kierafitz and for the feedback and sources Professor Price. I was really struggling to find some good ones from the library and from Google, I completely forgot about Google Scholar to be honest. I'll be sure to dig into them! Tug47650 (talk)tug47650