User:KernelG9900/MGTOW(Men Going Their Own Way))/Hasan Swain 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? KernelG9900
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KernelG9900/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been altered by the editor, however, the initial lead encompasses the main points of the article quite well.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The lead clarifies the meaning of the "MGTOW" acronym, while also providing insight to the purpose/meaning of the MGTOW community.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. The lead gives insight to both MGTOW beliefs and other communities similar to MGTOW.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The lead only contains information relevant to the topic of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes. The lead is concise and does not give too much information.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead does what it is supposed to do in a concise and effective fashion.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The sandbox content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. All of the sandbox content is relevant to the focus of the article.

Content evaluation
Overall, the sandbox content is relevant and refrains from redundancy.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. The added content is neutral and refrains from bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. The sandbox content is consistently neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone and balance of the sandbox content is entirely neutral and does not attempt to sway the reader toward a certain belief.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Both sources are articles written by authors who have voiced their observations and/or beliefs of the MGTOW community.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. Both sources provide great insight into the MGTOW community and provide the reader with a plethora of information to ponder upon.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Both sources are relatively current and are consistent with current widespread beliefs and/or ideals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The secondary sources the editor chose as the basis of the information currently present in their sandbox is up-to-date and relevant.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The sandbox content could benefit from a comma and/or hyphen here and there, but generally speaking, the content is mostly grammatically correct.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In some areas the content could benefit from additional punctuation.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The organization of the content, without regard for the grammatical correctness, is sound. The information flows well with the remainder of the content in the article.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the punctuation of the sandbox content could be improved in some areas, but the overall organization of the information is sound.

Images and Media
(NO 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
(N/A)

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?
 * Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The additional content is strong in terms of its ability to assist the reader in differentiating between MGTOW and other anti-feminist/misogynist communities.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Other than improving upon the punctuation in some areas, I am unable to think of any other methods of improvement for the added content.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the added content provides excellent insight as to how MGTOW differs from other hate groups targeted against women and women's rights. This information, in my honest opinion, will only enhance the article as opposed to working against it.