Okay. But some of these sources seem to duplicate each other - - a lot of "quirky" sites/sources. Keep looking for sources about Buldan's work that are objective, reliable, and neutral. Profhanley (talk)

Howdy![edit]

I've never heard of this local artist, but I'm looking forward to what information you have to put into an article for them! NicHT495 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

feedback[edit]

Okay . . .assuming the topic is [Carlos Casagemas]. Let's work to really narrow down the scope of what you want to improve. This looks like it could be fun. Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

next[edit]

Next step is to find a model article - - an article on a related topic that is either "Good Article" status or looks pretty complete etc. Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Shields Peer Review[edit]

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? What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Like all great Wiki articles, the writing is concise. I was impressed by the author on broad fragmented parts of the painter's life, but still focused on specific moments.

2. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I would like to know more about the painters relationship with other famous painters, if any.

3. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I could potentially cover a broader range of topics, while still delving into specific moments of my topic.

Great Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.77.197 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Swackhamer Peer Review[edit]

Overall, this topic was interesting and about a person I had never heard of before. Your writing is concise and to the point.

Lead: You introduce a lot of information about him and his personal life, which makes the article feel a little one-sided. Although his personal experiences are interesting, it seems like there could be a lot more information about his professional life. Maybe follow more the lead that is in your Ansel Adams model where it describes his experience as a photographer and what he did for the art of photography.

Structure: For the structure, this also seems very personal. Early Life and Family is fine, but it would be good to add a section on his career, contributions, accomplishments, and any awards earned. The article focuses a lot on his sex life, relationships (especially the one with Picasso), his depression and suicide. Although his death was dramatic, is that the main thing you want your readers to learn about? What was his career like as an artist? Are you able to find more images of Casagemas artwork? The Solo Exhibit section could be part of a larger section on his career in general.

The article is really condensed and feels almost crowded, like too much information is presented in each section.

Balance/Neutrality: I think I've already talked about this above, that you could include more about his career to balance out the personal information. If I had to guess I would say that you were interested in his personal journey and and all the relationships he had. The article isn't biased, but it is slanted to one aspect of his life.

Sourcing: You have a good amount of reliable sources that are trustworthy. The sources connect to the topic. Looking at the sources it seems like Casagemas is almost most famous for being a friend of Picasso's. Are there any more sources that focus just on Casagemas and his career?

The most important thing you could do is to see if you can find more about his career as an artist.

Good job!

Eyebasooda (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)William[reply]

Peer Review: Ethan495[edit]

Hello, you've got a very informative topic here. Its very well organized and well written. The only thing I feel like could be improved is the lead section. The lead section is quite short and not very inclusive. Possibly consider including more small pieces of information in the lead. Small (informational) pieces that will lead into the sections that you have here. The topic would be just fine if you left it. But by adding to the lead section, it might make the topic seem more complete. Otherwise it seems like you found some really good sources and were able to provide us with quite a bit of cool information about this artist. Thank you! Ethan495 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GtG[edit]

Ready to publish. But, review the peer feedback to see if there's still room for improvement. Profhanley (talk)