User:Ccarson2/Distinction (sociology)/Bellanapodano 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? Ccarson2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ccarson2/Distinction (sociology)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This is a good base for a lead but it should be expanded to include the legal, military, and cultural distinctions that the user recently added to the article. The lead has a good general opening sentence but still needs to make reference to every section in the article. It also mentions Joesph Heath and Andrew Porter but they are not mentioned in the rest of the article which makes the lead seem overly detailed. I think the article's lead would be stronger if Porter and Heath were either taken out of the lead or mentioned in another section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or 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?

Content evaluation
The content added does a great job at discerning the three definitions of distinction in sociology which is important in order to clarify the topic. All the content is relevant and up-to-date, with recent sources cited through the paper. I don't believe this article corresponds to any equity gaps since its referring to distinction as a social force which assigns values, not representative populations. The content could be improved with some clarifying examples on the topic, a chronological historical breakdown of the debate surrounding the topic, and some more wikilinks throughout the writing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
All the content is neutral and unbiased so I think this article does a good job at maintaining an objective tone. I wouldn't say that any section is underrepresented but they can always be expanded by addressing more academics who have studied distinction and citing their work.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
These sections needs citations throughout:

"Pierre Bourdieu discussed an objectified cultural capital, where the visual aesthetic of people or objects is more important than the inner-meaning. Bourdieu argues that pictures that are not attractive become appealing because of the high levels of cultural capital. Giselinde Kuipers evaluated physical looks among four European countries. Her study found the relationship of social position and beauty for males was weakest, but for females was highest. This study reflected Bourdieu’s aesthetic disposition because Kuiper found that young and educated people are attracted to a an original beauty"

"Soldiers are viewed as peacekeepers and identify with this role while also being in the role of a warrior. Terrorism is another factor that plays a role on military and their perception by society. Terrorism is a major threat that military deal with and not are typically tasks of police forces. "

I believe the sources are current and diverse in opinion. They reflect a spectrum of opinions and all seem credible. I would recommend citing as you talk about a specific source rather than putting the citation solely at the end in order to let the reader know where the respective information is coming from.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think the content is well written and easy to read. The sections are apt but could be expanded into a historic section or a distinction between Bourdieu's original "distinction" and the more modern or new age take on it.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is a lot more complete, with three clear sections that clarify the diverse interpretations of distinction. I think the strengths are the introductions of various scholars but would recommend that their contributions be laid out chronologically or historically to understand the evolution of distinction in sociology. I think the content could be improved by expanding more information and adding some clarifying examples, as well as highlighting more wikilinks. Overall, it's a great start to an unconventional and underrepresented topic that should be on wikipedia for its information creation process.