User:AnisaAbdullahi/Feminism and media/Rhys Langridge Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  AnisaAbdullahi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AnisaAbdullahi/Feminism and media

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead does include an introductory sentence which describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is a brief introductory description of the articles main sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information appears to be presented in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes the lead is clear and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the added content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it doesn't appear there is any content that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it represents feminism in media, which is highly underrepresented both in media and in life.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content appears neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, nothing seems biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all view points seem to be evenly presented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, all content appears to be neutral and doesn't attempt to shift readers opinions but rather to inform.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the citation comes from a reliable, peer reviewed source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the source appears to be thorough and reflects the available literature.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the source is as current as 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The source has been written by one person.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is easy to read and understandable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There does not appear to have any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, everything looks to be organized in a manner the reflects its major topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article includes two images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? One of the two photos does appear to be missing evidence of permission. The photo may potentially be deleted.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it has, improved the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is clear and concise. It also adds additional info to an article of growing importance.
 * How can the content added be improved? More information needs to be added to fill out the rest of the article.