User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato/Iriszhou99 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? Elizabethpopoff
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
I see you added some history on the history and the leading article. It is concise. However, I don't see a content.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Historically underrepresented topic

Content evaluation
All the sources are above 2010 time frame. This article is underrepresented topic since not a lot of information stems from this especially it is talking about a specific dessert.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content sounds neutral and doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in any position. The viewpoints does seem kind of underrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
All of the new references' link does work, but I do see blog posts rather than journal article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? no.

Organization evaluation
It is concise and organized.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
The picture of the affogato looks fine and it is eye appealing since it is on the top of the page.

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?

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
Overall, I can see more history about where the dessert came from. It is hard to find more information on a specific dessert but I think it could be improved by maybe extending from history to modern day.