User talk:Neliacarmo/sandbox

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• User: Neliacarmo
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Neliacarmo/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? [ The lead has not been changed (but the original is also pretty good and succinct) ]
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? [ Yes. ]
• 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? [ No. ]
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? [ It is concise. ]

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? [ Yes. ]
• Is the content added up-to-date? [ Yes. ]
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? [ The Scholarly Debate section has a few bits that might not be necessary, and I know we were al tasked with only doing 500 words, so I would assume there is more that could be added. Like the "figures" sub section could probably be pages long with all of the figures in the piece. ]
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? [ No. And that would be a tough one, but I wonder if there are any black perspectives out there, or women historians who might have more information. ]

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? [ Yes. ]
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? [ No. ]
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? [ None are overrepresented, but I am curious as to the mention of BTS at the bottom. I wonder if this piece has become popular in other countries and what art historians in those countries might think about it. ]
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? [ No. ]

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? [ Yes. I think. I mean, The Royal Museums of Fine Art in Belgium sounds like a. reliable source to me, although it might also help to include art historians who have written specifically about this piece. ]
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? [ The article does make me think there has to be more out there on this topic. More about the patronage perhaps, or more about the motivation the artist had for including such crazy symbols in the piece. ]
• Are the sources current? [Yes. ]
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? [ No. I mean, the one source that was text based seemed to be writing by someone working for that museum website, so I would wonder who else out there might have more information on it. ]
• Check a few links. Do they work? [ Yes. ]

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? [ Yes, although a few sentences feel as though they either don't need to be there, or they can be shortened and folded in to another sentence. ]
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? [ A few grammar errors here and there, but no spelling errors as far as I can tell. ]
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? [ Yes. ]

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media [ As far as I can tell, no new images have been added yet. ]

• 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?

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? [ Yes. There is expansion on the new sections added and it feels balanced in what was added. ]
• What are the strengths of the content added? [ It expands more on the figures within the painting as well as brings up pop culture references now. ]
• How can the content added be improved? [ I think saying "adding more" is silly at this point as we will all be adding more, but I would love to see more about the symbolism within the painting. It's a painting with dense content in it and I think that the symbolism as well as the Subject Matter could be expanded on quite a bit. ]

Overall evaluation

• [ It feels like a good start and I am looking forward to seeing more. This is a real interesting piece and for as many images as it has, I think this could have a lot more focusing on varying aspects of the painting, because I would love to see and learn more about it! ]