User:Chrisrobles416/Pears (soap)/Arianasainz72 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? (NadiaRLopez, Tfer92, Samiiee!34, M. Abe 2727, Chrisrobles416)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chrisrobles416/Pears (soap)

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
Not sure if the Lead has been updated. Overall, the Lead is straightforward and gives a perfect introductory sentence. I believe the sentence "Products under the Pears brand are currently manufactured only in India for the global distribution" should be moved to "Manufacture". It should not be in the Lead.

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
This article has great content. I am also looking at the userpage sandbox that shows the "Marketing" section being worked on. It has a lot of information that will be resourceful to the official article.

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
The content of this page is neutral. I do think this article has too many additional words that can be lessened. Overall, the article's view points are balanced and stay on topic to the subject of the soap.

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
The sources are good. However, in the sandbox draft the new content could use more citations. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.

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
The content is well written. As for grammar, additional words should be removed to not give a lengthy explanation. After a good clean up, the draft will be perfect for the actual article.

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
The images are well-captioned and enhance the understanding of the topic. The images adhere to the copyright regulations. All images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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
The new article seems to be focusing on the Marketing section. Your group has contributed a great amount of input to explain the soap bars as well as explain new ideas to support the history of Pears.

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
I think this is a great article. It gives a whole supported lesson about a simple soap bar company. Since the article is neutral, it gives more strength to the content added. The only thing that needs to be improved is the size format and the additional words. Overall, I am satisfied with this draft article.