User:Halb10/Anne Vallayer-Coster/Caravolpee 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? 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? I don't think the lead has been updated yet.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The current introductory sentence is clear but I think it should be a little more broad and just introduce the artist and then maybe have that as the second sentence.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It introduces the Reign of terror and the Fall of the French monarchy having an effect on her reputation but doesn't go into depth about it as to how it exactly effected her.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise but I think it is in a good that way. You never want an opening to be too long, just an intro of what the article is about, which I think it does well.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? All of the content in the article seems to be relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date? All of the content in the article seems to be up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? think the career section can be expanded on.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it does deal with one of Wikipedias equality gaps. Women in general from this tike were often left out history or at least didn't get the credit they deserved. This page represents an important female artist during the 18th century and her impact.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes all of the content seems to be neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not necessarily any claims that appear heavily biased since most of the content seems broad so I just think that there are parts in the article as a whole that can be expanded on.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nothing seems to be overrepresented or underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is mostly just background and Anne Vallayer-Coster's accomplishments.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All of the information is backed up with sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes all the sources are thorough with the exception of two, which are just sources from network so that makes sense.
• Are the sources current? Yes, most of them are from the 2000's and above with just one being from 1960.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there is only one overlap of soucres with the same author, but other than that there is a diverse spectrum of authors.
• Check a few links. Do they work? I checked all of the links and they worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is an easy read and is very clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Ive read through the article a few times and didn't find 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? All of the content that is in the article is broken down well but I do think that more sections could possible be added (i.e. an education section separately).

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes the artwork is in the article portrays what kind of artist Anne Vallayer-Coster is.
• Are images well-captioned? I think that it could beneficial to add little excerpt under some of the art just to explain what she if them are or mean.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Im pretty sure they do because they all are sourced correctly.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, I actually think they are laid out very well and I am going to try to use this technique in my article too.

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? I think the article can use some more information overall.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The points made in the article seem pretty strong.
• How can the content added be improved? Im not sure exactly what content was added by the peer since the sandbox section was empty however I assumed that it must have been published already to the wiki page. With that being said, I enjoyed reading the article and think the content is clear and important, just maybe needs some more subcategories on other aspects of the artists life and to get more into depth on them.