User:GrapeJelly84/Lex Oppia/Pinkcats99 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) GrapeJelly84
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:GrapeJelly84/Lex Oppia

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, you could make an addition to this but since this is a fairly short article/ topic I would leave how it it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and has the perfect amount of information.

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect new content added. The lead was very much improved from the original article's lead. I would suggest moving the organization of the lead around. I think it is more helpful for the reader to learn what the law was and what it did before learning about who put it into place, etc.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All content added is relevant to the topic and up to date. The content could be considered to deal with an equity gap, although these were supposedly wealthy women they were restricted from showing their wealth in any way because of the law.

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
All content added is neutral and the claims are not biased. There are no viewpoints over or underrepresented. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes the content is backed by up to date and reliable sources. The links to sources worked. The sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors. The addition of footnotes was appropriate.

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
All content added is clear, concise, and easy to read. I did not encounter any spelling or grammatical errors. I made a suggestion regarding the organization of the lead in its prospective section.

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
There was no media 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

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 addition of content was informational and clear. Great Work! One suggestion I would make to improve the article is an addition of pictures. For examples I would add some photos that show the wealth and clothing that the women were not allowed to show off because of the law.