User:Emilycnangle/Liberal feminism/Estherjacob 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) Emilycnangle
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_feminism&diff=919300201&oldid=917075686

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
Emily did not yet edit the introduction. The lead needs some work. It mentions Madiha Mazhar but gives no introduction to who she is. It also does not mention her again in the article. The lead should be introducing the topics in the article, not just explaining the articles topic. The article mentions radical feminism a number of times (the first being in the lead) but does not explain what it really is and how it differs from liberal feminism.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the article. It is added in an appropriate place and fits in well. However, make sure everything added on Wikipedia is cited. I could not find a source for the information added.I think more content could be added to the history of liberal feminism.

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 definitely article may have some NPOV issues. There are a few statements that are seemingly not from a NPOV. Some statements may represent very strong or even overrepresented feministic views and might be biased. At some points the article talks about liberal feminism but seems to be taking a radical viewpoint.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I could not confirm if the information came from a reliable source since no source was cited after the added content. Other sources in the article seem to be legitimate, I clicked on a few links and all went to current and reliable sources.

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 added was clear and easy to read. It does not have any grammar/spelling issues. I so think if additional information is added to the paragraph, the content will flow better.

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
N/a - no images or media were added.

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
N/a - not a new article.

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, the content added is a great start. The statement added strengthens the argument for Liberal Feminism and helps explain what contributed to it. However, there is a lot of work to be done on this article and I think there is a lot to build off of what was added. Explain more how the education system added to the inequality between men and women. Check to make sure everything is cited - this is crucial for a reliable Wikipedia article. It is also essential to look for statements that lack neutrality. So far you did a good job, good luck!