User:CollegeStudentForGrade/Vag Magazine/Ktisby 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? CollegeStudentForGrade
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Vag Magazine

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is a clear sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a brief description but no information about what the TV Show is about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, added more information abut actresses and location of film.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The led it concise but lacking detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? For the most part, the content is up to date. More information would be useful.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing, it would be useful to have more information about the script and topic of show.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the article does not. It is more of information about a show relevant to the feminist movement.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I did not see any.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The whole TV show is a little underrepresented in my opinion. would have enjoyed more information on it.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader. Strictly informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are, but the information from the sources was not shared.
 * Are the sources current? For the most part
 * 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? Yes, they work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Not much content was added
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A little bit of grammatical errors but easy to read
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not much information to break down. Easy to read.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? They included an image but it does not show me anything about the show.
 * Are images well-captioned? Lack a caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are not unappealing but the image was very basic.

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? Yes, they are.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is very short and not sure how reliable it will be. suggest adding more.
 * 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? Yes it does.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Just a little more complete, more information would be useful.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The cast list is very informative
 * How can the content added be improved? Why, how, and when was the tv show created. Also any impact it had on the audience.

Overall evaluation
It was a decent article but lacked a lot of information. After reading the review, if the information is added the article will be stronger!