User:Destiinyespinoza/Lipstick feminism/Yuliana Acevedo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Destiny Espinoza


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.
 * Editing User:Destiinyespinoza/Lipstick feminism - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lipstick feminism

Evaluate the drafted changes.
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

- The lead seems to be updated enough to reflect the new content added, includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic, includes a brief description of the major sections, it does not include information that is not present in the article, and detailed enough at a good length.

Content:

- The content added is relevant to the topic, it is up to date, there does not seem to be content missing or that it does not belong, and the article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (feminism and some underrepresentation of women related to this topic) ￼

Tone and Balance:

- The content added is neutral, there does not seem to be that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, there are not views that are overrepresented or underrepresented, and the content added does not attempt to convince the reader in favor of one position or away from another

Sources and References:

- The first content and reference provided by Destiny is relevant to the topic. It adds on to what is trying to depict towards stiletto fashion feminism. Very straightforward and neutral. However, I was having trouble accessing the second reference link so I could not read what was it about and how relevant it was to the topic. The link would take me to a login in page and I would try to log in but still had trouble.

- There is a dead link that should be removed (link # 18), there are references that are repeated such as #2 and #16 (they seem to be having trouble with loading as well because the rest seem to work fine except this one) and #3 and #17, there is not a reference link to look at for #13.

- The sources do seem to be current though

- The website frequently used named Taylor & Francis Online seems to be a good and reliable source to look for information regarding to this topic. - Reference #14 seems to be more of a blog website so maybe it should be replaced with a more reliable source

Organization:

- The content added is well-written, it does not have any grammar or spelling errors, and is well-organized