User:Juliahutcherson/Chopine/Melendb 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? Juliahutcherson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Juliahutcherson/Chopine

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated to include information about the origin of Chopines, as well as its presence in different countries.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead perfectly describes in a simple and concise format, what will be further discussed in more detail throughout the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The main topics added were about the presence of Chopines in various countries. This is relevant because it meant many different things amongst cultures and countries
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel there isnt much to say on the topic as is, and therefore I believe what was added was sufficient and relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes I believe so. The original article mentioned how chopines were a style in Spain, but Julia went into further depth about its presence in Spain and I feel in this way she addressed an underrepresent population.

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 believe that the tone was neutral throughout the edited article and there weren't any biased opinions. I feel the fact that she included more information about the origins and other countries that had chopines created a more unbiased opinion and neutral tone, opposed to the original article. Well done.

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?

The links that were present in the article do work, but they were present in the original one; in other words no new links were added. The sources that were added are all reliable sources.

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?

Yes. I believe the information added is organized beautifully. The subsections are very specific and relevant to the topic being discussed in that section. If you read a title of a certain subsection, the information within that section reflects upon the title entirely.

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?

No new images were added, but maybe it would be a good idea to include images of chopines from Italy, Spain, and Greece in an effort to showcase how the chopines changed across countries.

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?

I believe the content added does improve the article as it gives more of a variety of information about the countries in which chopines were present. I also feel the format in which the article was organized was great. The only thing I may do differently is add a few more pictures reflecting the different chopines from country to country. Other than that I think it looks pretty good. Good job!