User:Gabigravina/Gender and religion/Acho01604 Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing the work from Gabigravina
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Gabigravina/Gender and religion
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gender and religion

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? Could use additional development
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I felt that the lead was concise. I feel that the improved version was created beautifully to reflect the idea of gender and religion in our world currently today. I felt that it was well written!

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, Gabigravina did a great job addressing ideas from different religions.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I felt that the content added was neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, they all seem to be relatively equal
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don't remember how many sources we were supposed to add, if we had to, but I would say maybe adding in a few other sources would be nice. It seemed as the same three sources were used multiple times.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? is third source relevant? I believe they do
 * Are the sources current? I would have to say yes. Two sources were created last year and the third source was created in 2012, a little old, but still resourceful.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, I believe so.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? There could be? I'm not so sure.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do seem to work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is and you are doing a very great job!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but if you wanted, I believe you could!
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the author has done a very great job at taking parts from the original text and adding more information from the research they have done!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I feel that it the way some sections were reworded make it easier to understand immediately without any extra words. It goes straight to the point, right to the details.
 * How can the content added be improved? I don't know if you mentioned this is your draft, but I was just wondering if you'd still talk about or add to the different sections from the original article. It touches on leadership roles, roles in marriage, religious teachings of gender related issues, etc. Would you keep it the way they are in the original? Delete it? Change it in any way? I was just curious! You are doing an amazing job, keep going! YOU GOT THIS!!