Peer Review
editHi Corina,
I enjoyed reading the additions you have made to your article so far. I found your additions easy and understandable when reading the leading section where historical references were used. Also, I found it helpful how you observed the painting and presented it with the references. This covers a lot of the structure strengths in your sandbox. The strong structure allowed for a much easier read, and it was concise as well.
I believe that the length of the section is about the correct amount for how much information there to understand. There didn't seem to be any sentences that weren't neutral, as the section seemed to be very fair without opinion, leaning towards one side or the other. I think you did a really good job of writing about neutral information, rather than just strictly negative or positive information.
In addition to the solid information, the sources were also credible and can be relied upon to further support the article's strength. Overall, I think that you did a great job of displaying the information in a clear and concise way that is easy for a reader to understand. There wasn't any leaning towards negative or positive information, which is another strong point. One of the few things that I had notice from the article however was a few questionable word choices spotted in the leading section. Aside from the very small word usage questions, I think that this was a great start to putting information about the painting!
- Nicholas Pollmeyer