User:Glory30/Shyness/Kamila.tavarez 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

 * User: User:Glory30
 * User's article sandbox: User:Glory30/Shyness

Lead evaluation
The article's lead section is concise and gives a good summary of the article. Includes a brief definition of the topic and some background information. However, the recently added content doesn't have any kind of source. In order to be considered as reliable and legitimate information, it must have a source.

Content evaluation
The article has a lot of new information. The user did a job constructing it. However, none of them has sources that prove that the information is reliable and is not based on opinions. The last section in the sandbox looks good, but it looks like is the original's article information paraphrased. It doesn't have sources either. Citation and sources are important to prove the veracity and reliability of the information.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content of this article is neutral. It reflects the analysis of professionals on the topic. The information is looked at from the eye of science and behavioral studies. This allows the information to be seen analytically and neutrally.

Sources and references evaluation
The original article has references from the 20th and 21st centuries. I would recommend looking for more recent and reliable references that improve the quality of the article. The draft on the sandbox doesn't have any kind of sources, citations, or references. Although the user has another page with two references, if they've been used to add new information, I would highly recommend to include them and citing them.

Organization evaluation
This draft's content is easy to read and doesn't have any major grammatical or spelling errors. However, the headings and sections can be organized better. Some sections that must have headings have subheadings instead. This makes the article look disorganized.

Overall evaluation
In general, the article needs more work. Although the editor did a good job drafting some new information, they still need citations and references. I recommend to copy-paste the bibliography into the sandbox page and start citing the new content. And I would also recommend changing some subheadings into headings if needed.