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

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • I am reviewing Ericli123’s article on Brenda Mallory.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ericli123/Brenda Mallory

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?

The lead was very informational on the artist’s personal life, but maybe overly detailed. It could have probably been broken up into different sections. The education section of the article was also included with the lead, but could have probably been a formatting error. It is also possible that the bibliography was used as the lead.

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?

As a Wikipedia article on an artist, the sections discussing their themes and inspiration was what I was choosing to focus on from the get-go. These sections are the ones I would work on the most. The beginning part of “Reoccurring Chapters in the Book of Inevitable Outcomes” discussing Mallory’s prominent themes in her art work is quite confusing and not cited. I personally could not visualize the artwork being discussed so it would be nice for there to be a link that takes you directly to an image of the piece. The description of “Reclaimed and Reformed” was concise which I liked. Other statements could have been been elaborated a bit more.

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?

The article did not seem to be written in a persuasive tone, but some of it was difficult to understand due to he wording of it. Other viewpoints were not represented.

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

For the section “Recurring Chapters in the Book of Inevitable,” the first couple of sentences are statements being introduced for the first time and do not have a citation. Also citation number 9 redirected me to a website about the artist, but I was unsure of how it related to the section. Citation number 10 did not work. Overall, a majority of the citations worked and there were many linking to museum websites. There are some references that are just the link so I’d possibly cite them manually.

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?

The content seems wordy and in need of some formatting changes. I found many run on sentences and grammatical errors all throughout the article. There were some spelling errors as well. Wording wise, the words are simple and easy to understand what was meant. In “Group Exhibitions” the links might be better as citations.

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?

There were no images for me to evaluate.

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?

This article does have many sources, but it is usually the artist talking about herself. I personally do not know if this is all the literature on Brenda Mallory, but from my experience I found that secondary sources that discuss a particularly unknown, living artist is very limited. Article links to other existing Wikipedia articles are missing.

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 the personal content presented on the artist was great, but the content on specific artworks was lacking. I’d focus on correcting the errors and improving the sections about the artist’s work.