User:Kendyldelyse/Miniskirt/Graciekass1101 Peer Review

General info
Kendyldelyse
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kendyldelyse/Miniskirt
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Miniskirt

Lead

 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I believe so yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and to the point

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it is all relevant
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not cover an equity gap

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is all fact based
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No it is very neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No it is very neutral
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No there is no opinions mentioned or mention of strong persuasive language

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes the content and the sources match
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do, and all the media coverage that comes with it
 * Are the sources current? Yes, within the last handful of years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the writers involved seem to be diverse. There is at least one BIPOC who wrote up a source that was mentioned
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Not that I can find. These sources seem perfectly adequate and reliable in discussing the topic
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do work

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is very clearly written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is only one singular section, however, each sentence within the one paragraph is clearly stated and is not redundant. Every sentence is relevant information

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I would say yes. I know much about the topic that as included into the article, and I find it relevant and important information to the original article’s topic
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Every sentence is very direct and it does not sound too human, meaning there isn’t any casual language or typos or hints of bias. I appreciated how many sources that were also included
 * How can the content added be improved? There could perhaps be a sentence or two about a viral micro mini skirt that ended up relaunching the popularity of one brand in the modern age, Diesel. There were many examples that were included which are relevant and good to have, but this one example would be like an extra cool fun fact that is also relevant and truthful to this topic of micromini skirts.