User:Aniidorii/Anarcha-feminism/Lbargabus0 Peer Review

{| class="wikitable"
 * 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?
 * Yes, lots of new needed information added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, “In its early stages of development. . . “
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes very thorough
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I am unsure if anything is missing but the content there all belongs
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It deals with Anarcha- Feminism; yes this is underrepresented and the new information added is relevant

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All neutral no sides chosen
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No biased sides in the article
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints of all the different parts added seem to be perfect and do not go into too much detail about one thing to distract from the main topic
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content added is simply added information on the topic

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all added references check out
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes the added information came from these sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The references reflect thorough information about the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * All sources seem up to date on information
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I am unsure
 * 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.)
 * The sources chosen seem like great sources with helpful added information
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Easy to read and flows well
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could find
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the added information flows well with the article

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?\
 * n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes the article is more complete now with the added information
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The last paragraph added was stated well with the questions you ask yourself while reading the paragraph answers them for you without still wondering
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the content added was added very well and thought out
 * }

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)