User:JrobinsonSP23/Red dress effect/Btn0238 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Starting here:

[what the article does well-is there anything from your review that impressed you? any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?]

[what changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? why would those changes be an improvement?]

[what's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article]

[did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article]

[other elements (relating to what makes a good Wikipedia article)]


 * A lead section that is easy to understand:
 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?


 * A clear structure:
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?


 * Balanced coverage:
 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?


 * Neutral content:
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.


 * Reliable sources:
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!