User:Elizabethpopoff/User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato/Bradyamcevoy 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? (provide username)
 * 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, nice first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really, the lead is essentially the bulk of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, but again, the lead should be smaller and separated into different sections
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is technically concise but because the opening section is not separated into different topics, it feels overly detailed

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?
 * Yes, talks nicely about how Affogato is viewed and categorized differently around the world

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?
 * Only one that feels slightly underrepresented is the final point in the History section. Adding a bit more about how Affogato entered American dessert culture would strengthen the point and make it feel more represented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, not at all

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, except that the last sentence of the main section ("it is popular in countries where they dress it with chocolate syrup...") could use a citation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, lots of sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * Seems like it
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes I think so
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yup

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part, yes. I think that you need to add an article title as well as at least one or two section subtitles. Also simplifying the language in a few places could make it feel more encyclopedic (I hope that's a word).
 * For example: When you say "It usually takes the form of a scoop of fior di latte..", that could be something like "An affogato is a scoop of fior di latte, vanilla gelato, or ice cream topped with..."
 * I hope this point makes sense, I think you have a well written article, it could just sound a bit more wikipedia-like
 * 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, this is definitely where you could most easily improve the article. Everything you include is relevant but just splitting it up into paragraphs doesn't help much with the organization. I think you just need a clear article title, then a title for the body of the article (basically everything after the first paragraph), then maybe another section talking about variations, and then the History section at the end as you have 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?

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?
 * Yes, seems like it
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is very thorough and feels like you cover the important descriptions of Affogato
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Better organization and some simplification in how you present the information

Overall evaluation
I hope this helps! Also I love affogato thats why I chose to peer review your article