User:JasleneS/Equity feminism/Amyrica19 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) JasleneS
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JasleneS/sandbox

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? No, the lead sentence and the following paragraph should be switched.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not quite right, it jumps into when it was proposed rather than what it was.

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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No, there seems to be some sentences that come to their own conclusions (ex. "If there is no political push for a feminist equitable society it would create a statement that women are lesser than men and don't deserve the same treatment regardless of education or social class.)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, it talks about how equity in feminism is important. You shouldn't take a stance in a Wiki article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overrepresented, creates a viewpoint pushing for feminism; not neutral. Focuses on how Europe has better feminism than America.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes, article sounds more like a persuasive discussion towards the end of the Wiki page. Should not be taking a stance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some sentences are hard to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, grammatical errors like capitalizing letters or missing periods. Some sentences do not make sense.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Confused as to where your section will be placed in the original article (it's still in your sandbox).

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Feel like it needs more sources, 1 article for each section does not seem like enough information.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Unsure of how it will flow with the original article if it were placed before or after "overview" on original Wiki page.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good job on following most of Wikipedia's guidelines (good layout, sources cited.)
 * How can the content added be improved? Read below

Overall evaluation
Overall, I liked the direction that you were heading in. I can understand why you would add a section called "ERA" for the Equity Feminism page. But I think you needed more sources in order to state your reasoning about what you were writing. Remember not to jump to your own conclusions, it should be neutral. Since you didn't add your draft to the actual page I wasn't sure how the whole article would flow together. Make sure to proofread, some grammar issues and confusing sentences.