This peer review discussion has been closed.
I worked this article up to what I feel is a decent Wikipedia quality and would eventually like to see it get a GA rating. Any input and improvements to the article happily appreciated.--Scott Free (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My two main sources are '200 years of American Illustration' and 'The Illustrator in America' - I reworded the first sentence, but I kept the Ortakales info, because it has bits of info that aren't in my main sources. They seem reliable.
In any case, the website does not look like a reliable source - particularly for the quote attributed to Peck. fixed CEP quote
Since the site gives what look like good book references, you'd avoid these problems and get more material for your article by tracking those down instead of trying to cite this potentially unreliable web intermediary.
I reworked this, sticking closer to sources.
I put in some stuff on this.
Wikilinks or additional information on her comic book work would be very helpful. A bit more was added.
The list of illustrations is, well, listy, and doesn't communicate (to the ignorant, at least) the importance of the works or of the style they reflected. This has been moved around
Adding a section on critical reception, either of Peck's work in particular or of her style/format in general, would help establish context, as would an explanation of how and when women illustrators became involved in comic books. Added some stuff on this
template glitch, fixed
I'm not convinced 'old ebay auction' qualifies as a valid source even for a public-domain image, much less a non-free one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, OR, much appreciated. All good points. I'll make sure to address them where possible; I have access to most of the necessary references or at least am aware of other relevant sources. --Scott Free (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)