User:JazzyLinx/Ruth Leonela Buentello/Vega93x Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

JazzyLinx

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JazzyLinx/Ruth_Leonela_Buentello?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi JazzyLinx! Here's my peer review for you:

Lead

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes, you included a clear and concise lead. Perhaps you could improve it even more by being a little bit more specific about some of the main themes in Buentello's art. To make the wording even clearer, you might consider changing "her incorporation of her personal Chicano/a culture..." to "incorporating her Chicano/a culture."

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, all the content you've assembled here is relevant to the topic and gives readers a clear idea of what the topic is about. Good job!
Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, it does seem that all of the content is sourced from recent, reliable sources. However, in some cases I had trouble finding the year for the source. You might try double-checking all the citations to make sure the date of publication is clearly listed in the same place.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I did not see any content that seemed irrelevant, distracting or off-topic. Most of the content provided is great, and gives useful details about the topic. If you included just a little more information about the artist's work, how it's been received by critics, or what themes it engages with, this article would be even better!
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, this article addresses Wikipedia's equity gaps by discussing a historically underrepresented population, as its subject is a female Mexican American print artist.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the tone is consistently neutral throughout. Nice work keeping the tone informative and avoiding any perceived bias!

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, and the citations were clear and easy to follow. But the article could possibly use a few additional sources to make sure readers feel comfortable that they are getting a full picture of the topic.
Are the sources current? - Yes, all of the sources were published within the last ten years. When I clicked on a few links, they all worked. Well done!

Organization

Is the content added well-written? - Yes, overall this is a well-written article. It is concise, easy to read, and provides relevant information that will be useful to readers seeking to know more about the topic. Nice job!
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There might be just a few minor errors, but they do not distract from the reader's understanding of the topic. Instead of "inspired by their intersectionality" I believe it should simply be "inspired by intersectionality" and near the end of the Biography section, the word " artists' " in "further the artist' [sic] drive" is missing an "s."
Is the content added well-organized? - Yes, you followed the Wikipedia template accurately and provided a clear, organized set of headings to guide the reader through the content.

Overall impressions

What are the strengths of the content added? - Overall, this is a clear, concise article that provides a good summary of the relevant information on the topic. The sources are up-to-date and accurately communicate the information linked with them in the citations. There do not seem to be any major omissions, and the tone is neutral and informative throughout.
How can the content added be improved? - While the existing content is relevant and easy to read, it could be improved even more by adding some additional details about the nature of the artist's work. Other than that, this is a really well-written Wikipedia article!