User:Idarys Newrton/Skin care: beauty salon/Ixamaris Cruz 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? https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Idarys%20Newrton
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Idarys Newrton/Skin care: beauty salon

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
No. My peer haven't updated the article with new content, the article still the same way before our WikiProject. None of the citations, references, and literature collected is present in the assigned article.

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
There is no new content added on the Draft and the article. The only thing I can see in the sandbox is the copy/paste article in the same format, content and definitions.

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
I am not able to analyze new content because it is inexistent. Just to write about the article in general, the tone is neutral, none of the aspects have the intention of persuading the reader. Data is precise, but it needs a lot of improvement and development.

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
New content is not available, my peer did not search for new references, the article still intact. Evaluating the old references, all of them still current but none of them have a particular author, they are under a web name.

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
There is no updated content by my peer, everything still intact, no references, citations nor new words that could add something essential. to the article.

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?

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?

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
I cannot evaluate new content if is not able in any case, however, the article in general is very short, some data is not well organized and some of the references do not offer a good portion of content as needed. This article is a general and important topic which definitely needs to be improved quickly.