User:Jameststurner/Erased de Kooning Drawing/Josephrkopta 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?

User:Jameststurner

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jameststurner/Erased de Kooning Drawing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Erased de Kooning Drawing

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

You might update the lead (either with a sentence or two, or with a small insertion of words) to incorporate this new section that you've created relating Rauschenberg to the abstract expressionists.

Even though you didn't write this bit, a citation is needed to confirm the Jasper Johns story about putting the work in a golden frame.

Content

The new section you've added seems appropriate for this article, and balanced. I'll be curious to see what other Wikipedia editors think about whether this is the place to add this insertion, or whether it would be better directly on the Robert Rauschenberg page.

You should post on the talk page of Erased de Kooning Drawing a short introduction to who you are and what your proposed modification is. You'll probably get feedback within a day or two! Maybe you want to do so also for the Robert Rauschenberg page (Check out Jillian's comments on the Talk:Shinto shrine, and the response she got)

Organization and Sources

There are two things that are missing in your draft: you need to link to other Wikipedia pages (relatively simple); but more importantly, at this point, you need to include your sources. It doesn't look like you've posted your sources on you bibliography page (User:Jameststurner/Erased de Kooning Drawing/), so I'm not sure what you've been consulting, but especially since your proposed change is an entirely new section, you absolutely need to insert citations after nearly every sentence.

Have you consulted Bruno La Tour's essay, "Iconoclash"? (Available as a PDF on the course Canvas). That's the most up to date theoretical scholarship that I know of which might better frame the question of "is this vandalism," which exists already in the article.

Images

This will be down the line, but maybe it's worth it to put up the SFMOMA's digitally enhanced images showing the original de Kooning drawing from 2012? You need to investigate first whether this is a copyrighted image before doing so. The Wiki training module for next week on images and graphs can help with this.