User:Annaybanez/Islamic feminism/Amcbayy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Anna Ybanez
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_feminism&action=history

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I could not find actions performed by my peer, but I noticed edits aligning with the dates of assignments within the class that are updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is lengthy but very detailed and does a good job summarizing the points that will be explained later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Whether or not it was inserted by my peer, the article content section organizes future information in a clean and structured way. Easy to navigate, good job!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not to my knowledge, the lead is structured well. The introduction is a bit lengthy, but there is a lot of information within the article so it is understandable.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Right on the line between just right and overly detailed. Despite the lengthy introduction, the article is packed with lots of precursor information that is necessary to address in the article. Something to consider might be leaving the list of prime ministers and secretaries out of the lead, and simply mentioning them to recall the list later in the article.

Content evaluation

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? A majority of the edits and citations are from 2020, a very efficient and up to date article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? A few citations and links are from 5-7 years old, however, the information present is still relevant considering the religious interpretations that are concrete for the most part.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is extremely detailed, like I stated, I was unable to see specifically what my peer added because originally the article was very dense and detailed. Each sub point is thoroughly explained with up to date sources and articles.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Most definitely! The article is surprisingly neutral, I was impressed with the level of neutrality each editor maintained. I even checked out a range of included sources that are all relevant and scholarly as well.

Tone and Balance
Tone and balance evaluation


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, sources and continents check out to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? For obvious reasons, a stance is taken in explaining the struggles and treatment of Islam women. The article manages to present information without an accusation or attack fueling the main argument.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not in the slightest, each point is addressed according to the significance of the subject. Lengthy content sections were typically addressing subjects that required precursor information and historical backing. Subjects that were shorter in length were concise yet full of rich information that encompassed the ideas woven throughout the article.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? As a reader, I was persuaded, however, the article did not lead me in such a fashion. The topic presented is an issue that has an obvious division of stances, therefore, no matter how the information was presented, I believe the audience withholds a certain stance.

Sources and references evaluation
Organization evaluation


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The article appears to be left unfinished by an original author. The source editor asks questions throughout the article, asking for sources, citations, and well-known people addressed. Given the length of this article, I understand if the editor missed a few of these questions left unanswered.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, however, the Quran was cited various times throughout the article both versions in its original language as well as the English adaptation. Not sure if it was a technical issue on my end, but some of the sources would not open if you did not have the right extension?
 * Are the sources current? A large majority of the sources are from 2010, although still relevant in some ways, an outside viewer might see this as an outdated source of information. The lead contains a chunk of great sources that are relevant to today, the furthest from date was 2015 and pertinent historical information that remains concrete.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, not only a diverse selection of authors, but time periods, and types as well. Ranging from religious books to analyzed journal articles, to popular newspaper entries such as the New York Times.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some I have an issue with because of the browser extension, but nine times out of 10, the link is accurate and available.

Images and media evaluation
If your peer added images or media: No Images added by peer


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The edits to the article added significant information to a source that was already extremely in-depth.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Anna did a great job addressing recent information and constantly interesting edits throughout the article. Her edits were woven into the original page very efficiently, and it was nearly impossible to notice the different writing styles between varying editors! Great job!
 * How can the content added be improved? The content is a bit lengthy, however, given the topic, I understand the need for such detailed historical background and religious context.

Overall evaluation
My peer, Anna Ybanez, accurately presented relevant sources and edits to an article initially rich in historical, societal, and religious contexts. The sources added were scholarly and sound, and the information that followed was organized and extremely detailed. The only criticism that I can offer is the length of the information offered, in some cases, information was drawn out or stated pre-existing information in a differently worded summary. All in all, my peers contributed relevant and important information that improved the historical accuracy and understanding of Islamic feminism.