User talk:Dominador495/sandbox/2

Peer Review: Kasside :)

Lead: The lead is good! it feels a little short but it definitely gives all the important info so it's good.

Structure: I think the reception section should maybe go closer to the end, give all the info first then give the reception to it. I think the Guernica: A Series section should go after the lead and then the dora maar and other versions then finish with receptions.

Balance/Neutrality: the "some response to the poem..." in the reception section is a little vague, might want to read word or just take out. I would also find more reviews or articles for the reception section, you only give Grace Nichols and it's a negative perspective, so it's sort of a biased section. The other sections seem find in terms of neutrality.

Sourcing: Definitely need more sources, in the reception section, you mention Grace Nichols but don't cite her at all. You definitely gotta find some sources to cite and include in the article. You also mention in the lead that the painting is in the Tate Modern but then in reception you mention it was part of an international tour, so you sort of give this spotty information, it would be good if you could fill in that blank, in your model article, The Icebergs, they mention the sort of "journey" of the painting, even if no one knew where the painting was if it was lost or stolen, etc. you should really try to mention that and give that type of information.

Your guide article also has a description section, could you maybe try and include that? Maybe find a scholarly article that talks about the painting and describes it?

You definitely have a good draft! You added new sections that the original article doesn't have so that's good, you're expanding and improving it! But you really need to cite sources and give a little bit more information in some areas. KassideSE (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Benjamin

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The article gives information on the history of the painting, the painter and the physical painting. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I do not see anything that should be changed. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Perhaps more information could be added to "The Series" Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I could add more information on the history of the authors of the text I chose to research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bshields93 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

The article needs sourcing and citing . . . pronto. Profhanley (talk)

Not ready for prime time

See peer feedback. Still no sourcing. Work with your model pages to organize and add content. Profhanley (talk)

Peer Review- Danae S.

1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The lead of this article contains enough varied key information that introduces the topic. You made sure to put in a dimensions box which I believe is necessary for articles concerning pieces of art. I really like how you devoted an entire section to Picasso's mistress and muse for this work however it may be necessary to include her briefly in the lead so that the reader understands immediately her relation to the piece. Maybe you could connect Dora Maar's information to possible critical interpretations of how Picasso's image of her was an extension of his image of certain women in a broader sense...? 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Their are some grammatical errors in the writing of this piece that need a second look. The structure of the article is a little confusing and could use a slight reorganization. Putting a brief description segment before the one of Dora Maar and the Guernica background would provide more clarity. 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? More sources cited and referenced within the information of this article. 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I liked how you cited another verision of the work that was inspired by this one. This is something I will consider in my own article.