User talk:MadelineMadrid/sandbox/Mary Magdalene (Artemisia Gentileschi)
peer review
[edit]Hi Madeline--
Overall I think this is fairly clear and well-organized. I do think there could be a little bit more context added to the beginning of the article, either in the lead section or in the subject matter section, just to give a clearer picture of the work before the discussion gets more granular. Coverage feels balanced, any value statements are supported by the source material. I am somewhat confused about the three sources you’ve included; your article looks like it’s fully cited using the existing citations, are you using the three you’ve included?
I like the way you’ve structured this a lot, and may use your structure to tweak the structure of my own article.
Specific comments:
I think a little more information could be added to the lead section, maybe a brief mention of historical context or what makes this work significant.
There are a few typos and errors, as well as some phrases I would change. Under “Subject Matter,” there is an extra “is” (“The figure is portrayed is”). The following sentence is also missing the final ‘e’ on Magdalene to match the way it’s spelled throughout the rest of the article. I also wonder if maybe the second paragraph regarding the signature might be better suited to a section on attribution?
Under “Style and Influence” there is an extra ‘L’ in Orazio Gentileschi’s last name.
I would also change the phrasing of “womanly perspective” to “woman’s perspective” or “female perspective.” I can’t really explain it but something about “womanly” is throwing me off, I think maybe it’s that it’s a word I usually hear in more misogynist contexts (IE “womanly duties” or “womanly virtue”).
Under “Iconography,” it is unclear to me what quotation you mean when you say, “Mary, the sister of Lazarus (as referenced by the quotation).” I am also a little confused when you mention “three characters” after only referencing two; the third is unclear.