User:ScrumbulusSour/Janiva Ellis/20BrokenCupcakez 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?

ScrumbulusSour

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ScrumbulusSour/Janiva Ellis
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Janiva Ellis

Evaluate the drafted changes

In the early life and education section, you wrote, "Ellis came back to New York in 2017 with a new outlook on her upbringing, and she does this through her latest work," what work are you referring to?

In selected exhibitions, you added two exhibitions; make sure to put them in chronological order. And those two exhibitions you italicized, are you going to do that to the other ones as well?

Information from your bibliography that you did not include in your sandbox:

A 2020 exhibition- Editors' Picks: 19 Things Not to Miss in New York's Art World This Week

"Wikipedia states Ellis occasionally paints religious symbols and leaves it at that. However, I would like to conclude late Gothic and Renaissance art mashed with current-day modernist art to describe her style." - Hammer Projects: Janiva Ellis | Hammer Museum If you are going to conclude that her art is late Gothic and Renaissance with current modern art you need sources that prove it. An example of this is Ellis's “Hammer Projets: The Angels” (2022).

"From here, I want to add something about the Whitney Biennial and how it was "The 79th edition presents a roster of 75 artists that veers disproportionately young, showcasing predominantly artists of color who have never exhibited at the museum before,"(Anon n.d.)" - ‘We Were Seeing and Feeling Anxiety’: The Whitney Biennial Curators on How Artists’ Struggle With Debt and Real Estate Shaped the 2019 Show.

Other sections you can add (if you can find the sources):

Interviews
Reviews and Mentions
Publications
Collaborations

You are not required to include these; I am only suggesting them. These sections are also from my article.

Thank you for your input and I went ahead and made those changes. Though there is not enough information out there yet to defend my view point on her biracial matters, nor her style of Gothic and Renaissance art. I do hope to find more information though.