User talk:2600:6C51:7D7F:EBC5:1FF:EFDB:82BA:7337

- I like how you separated the artists name and then went on to write and talk about her biography. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

- Your organization is well and relevant to your topic. I am not discouraged or distracted to continue reading your article. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)) 

- There is no bias that in the article that I was able to find, everything was well put in a neutral position. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)) - No over-represented/underrepresented viewpoints, everything is well put. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)) - All links are well put and they are work when clicked on, sources also support the work that was put on the wiki article. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)) - Not all facts are necessarily have reliable references on the actual wiki article, but the links put on bibliography and external links seem to match up. These facts come from links such as art websites and exhibitions that the artist has done. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

- No out of date information, everything that is needed is in the article. Everything seems correct. (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)) 

- Overall, a well put article. Your article has made me realize some things that I am missing on my article and how to format it. Good job! :) (Nancyhernandezz (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

---