User:Kamila Pineiro/Black is beautiful/Marrayaco Peer Review

Peer review
This topic is very interesting to work on and I am glad I had to peer review your edits because I 'm learning from it. The content added is relevant to the topic but it needs more organization if you want to add it to the original paragraph, or make a new paragraph to the article talking about what the message is of the Black is Beautiful movement. It is missing some important information that the original paragraph has that should not be removed. It has some grammatical errors. When starting with Black is beautiful., I think this phrase should be omitted, as it looks like you are introducing the subject, which is already in the title. The phrase  Women with dark skin tone are equally important than women with light skin tone  should not be specifying women only if the goal of Black is Beautiful, as you say, is  women and men to feel empowered both inside and out . I would recommend including both genders or generalize it as black-skinned people. It has a grammatical error in the word ‘’tone’’, it should be written as ‘’tones’’ and on ‘’than’’, that should be written with the preposition ‘’as’’.  Black is Beautiful is a culture movement that was started in the United States in the 1960s by African Americans  In here the world culture should have stayed as the original (Cultural) because its cited in a Wikipedia article that can provide more understanding to the reader. The phrase  Black is Beautiful  is mentioned in every sentence, committing redundancies, which I recommend to avoid. In the phrase here '' The meaning of "Black in Beautiful" referred to the broad embrace of black culture and identity. '' you have a grammatical error in ‘’Black in Beautiful’’, it should be ‘’Black is Beautiful’’.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) = Kamila Pineiro https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Kamila%20Pineiro
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kamila Pineiro/Black is beautiful

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?

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
The content added is relevant to the topic but it needs more organization if you want to add it to the original paragraph, or make a new paragraph to the article talking about what the message is of the Black is Beautiful movement. It is missing some important information that the original paragraph has that should not be removed. It does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

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?

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?

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
It has some grammatical errors.

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?