User:Wikiwarsaw/June Ethel Stephenson: she/her, Australian, 1914-1999/Olafsaaf 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? Wikiwarsaw
• Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Wikiwarsaw/June Ethel Stephenson: she/her, Australian, 1914-1999

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead is very good, concise and clear. Here are several small things you might consider: maybe your opening sentences could be combined a little? for instance maybe include the fact that she was a visual artist in the first sentence, just so we have a clear picture of who this is immediately. Other than that, I think that this lead includes all of the right information, and is an appropriate length.

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?

Content evaluation

This also looks great. It does seem like a stub, but I am guessing that sources were very limited, as they were for most of our class's 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?

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, your tone is very neutral. The only phrase that I would possibly question is when you refer to the network of female artists as independent women artists. It depends how crucial their independence is to their practice maybe? but this seems like a possible judge of character which could be seen as biased? To be honest i'm not sure if this is an issue at all but just something to consider.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Sources all look great! the links seem to work, and all of the information in the text is cited.

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?

Organization evaluation

Yes this all seems good. It would would be great to see more topics covered, but again i'm sure this is just because it was hard to find source material.

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?

Images and media evaluation

N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation

I think this is all good

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?

Overall evaluation

This article is very clear and refers to a lot of sources. Everything seems good to me!