User:HMartinez25/Fasting/CleanEen Peer Review

General info
HMartinez25
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:HMartinez25/Fasting
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Fasting - Wikipedia

Lead

 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the content added by your peer?

The Lead has not been updated, although I do not believe it needs to be.


 * 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. The Lead fails to mention direct health effects of fasting or anything about alternative medicine.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, although there is a disparity between how the Lead implies Intermittent Fasting is a legitimate weight loss technique, even though the main article speaks to the contrary.


 * Is the Lead concise, or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, and frankly I'm surprised that it was not there already, considering just how prevalent the practices of Christianity and Asceticism are.


 * Is the content added up to date?

As up to date as they can be, considering they concern in many cases ancient religious traditions.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All of this content belongs, and considering all the major world religions are now covered, I would not say that there is any "missing" content, just for the sake of brevity.


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

The "Types of Fasting" section mentions Jainism and the "Political application" section mentions the 1981 Irish hunger strike.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?

All the added content is neutral, succinct and objective.


 * Are there claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position?

No.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not as far as I can tell.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are only two new added references, but everything else is at the very least backed up by a link to another Wikipedia article covering the idea referenced.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources said?

I did not find anything from the original sources on the Mormon practice saying something specifically about the first Sunday of everything, but otherwise yes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

As current as they can be.


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

The added references come from two sources separated greatly by tradition, ethnicity, geography and time. It would not be possible, however, to include sources from marginalized groups for these particular references.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

Not to the added references.


 * Do the links work?

Yes.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e., Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Extremely.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.


 * Is the content well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The added content is, the pre-existing stuff could use a lot of work. Particularly, there are several sections that are just stubs.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No images are included.


 * Are images well-captioned?

There are no images.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Images are not present in this article.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Nah. I can't see any.