User:Jaylacnguyen/New York State Council on the Arts/Serena1205 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:Jaylacnguyen

Link to draft you're reviewing: New York State Council on the Arts
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): New York State Council on the Arts

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I made a few minor edits to the article to improve clarity and polish your great work while keeping the overall structure intact. In the lead section, I adjusted the sentence about NYSCA’s purpose to eliminate redundancy while maintaining the original meaning. Additionally, I refined the sentence about the grant numbers, making it smoother by saying "1,600 grants annually". These small edits ensure the article flows smoothly while preserving your original intent. I’ve provided more detailed suggestions in the evaluation prompts below. Keep up the great work!

Lead Section Review

Improvement: The updated lead provides a clear and concise introduction, effectively summarizing the council's purpose, scope, and importance. You improved on the original version by shifting the tone to align with encyclopedic standards while adding relevant details about the council’s goals and focus areas.
Suggestion: Consider adding a brief summary of key sections (e.g., the council's history, funding, and priorities). This will give readers a better sense of what to expect in the rest of the article.

Content Review

Missing Content:

A History/Origins section could enhance the article, covering the council’s founding, the political context, and any major milestones or legislative changes over the years.
A section on the impact of the council's grants (e.g., success stories or major projects supported) could further demonstrate its role in the arts ecosystem.

Tone and Balance

Improvement: The language now feels neutral and professional, with promotional phrases removed. The section on staff and operations, for example, is informative without being overly detailed.
Suggestion: While the tone is now more appropriate, adding specific examples of programs or projects that benefited from NYSCA grants could help balance the generality of the current content.