User:Halb10/Anne Vallayer-Coster/BlueKoolaide Peer Review

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? (provide username) Halb10
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Anne Vallayer-Coster

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 don't believe that the article lead section has been recently updated. From the main wiki page, the lead section's first sentence does a fair job in providing a summary on the artists. While the rest of the lead section provides great summary for the others sections of the article, I think another sentence summarizing the artwork style section could be added. There isn't random information thrown in and it is a balance of providing enough detail without giving the whole article away.

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?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

All content contributed to this article is relevant to the artist and her work. From looking at the history of updates, its been recently updated a few months ago. One thing I found myself wondering about is if she had any children or not, or possibly if there is a debate about it. I think it might be worth mentioning within the article. I didn't spot anything that didn't belong. It does talk about historically underrepresented populations in a way that does not seem biased when speaking about how her life and career were affected by said restrictions.

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

Overall, the article is very neutral and sticks to stating facts as well as provides references to claims. One line that stood out to me though was when Vallayer-Coster was called brilliant in the way she began and kept her career. While she may have done it brilliantly, to be neutral, we have to let the reader come to that conclusion themselves if they feel that way. Another word that could be used is innovative, creative, or possibly advantageous.

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content of the article is thoroughly marked with footnotes providing references and attribution for the information. From what I can tell from my quick use of a search engine, the sources do reflect the available literature on the artists. There are books referenced that are authored by influential women for the feminist radical voice, an art dealer and a women author who writes on minority topics. While there is a good amount of references, ten to be exact, I wonder if there could be any scholarly articles that could be used as references, Then again those articles may just be using information from the books that are already being used, so I am not sure about this, but it is an idea. A few of the links are broken, but not all of them.

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

I found this articles content to be very much so, well-written. I find it hard to see to many improvements to the writing style and formatting. There weren't grammatical mistakes or lines of information that should have actually put somewhere else. I liked the section format and organization. I thought it was visually appealing and provided a breakdown that made the information easy to digest. There is a repetition of her being excepted into the academy in career and life, but I think it's need in both areas.

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

There are quite a lot of pictures of Vallayer-Coster's work that adds a lot to the article. I am not sure if the portrait of her should be included though, because it is not a self-portrait about the artist the article is talking about. You could play around with the positioning of the gallery at the bottom making it five and five instead of four, four, two. That's not a real issue, and I don't think it takes away from anything. All photos are referenced.

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?

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?