User:Kristen998/Foot binding/Brittanyli 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? Kristen998
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kristen998/Foot binding, Foot binding

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?

Lead evaluation
I am not sure if the lead has been updated to reflect the new content, but the content that was added by my peer can be tied to the existing lead on the article. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, but the description is quite long. It contains a description of some of the article's major sections, but not all of them. The lead is overall 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 and up to date. It does not seem like there is any content that does not belong in the article, and it does address a historically underrepresented 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
The content that was added is mostly neutral, but there are some opinionated claims made. For example, the sentence "Daughters who do not bind their feet will experience more torture when they grow up." is a persuasive sentence in favor of a certain position.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
The content seems to be supported by secondary sources, but there are no citations in the content itself, just a bibliography at the bottom. There are also no links to check their validity. The sources that are added are thorough, up to date and are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They also include historically marginalized individuals.

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
The content that was added is concise and clear. There are a number of grammatical errors where the tense was changed to present tense instead of past tense. I also generally found that the content that has been added so far was more of a compilation of bullet point facts rather than an article addition. The content is not organized into different sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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?

Images and media evaluation
My peer added no images or media.

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?

New Article Evaluation
My peer is working on an existing article.

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?

Overall evaluation
The content that was added will add to the completion of the article, as there is information that is not currently on the article. The information and sources that were used were interesting and related to the topic. I feel that the content could be improved by adding in the Wikipedia citations so that the content can be linked to the sources, and editing the draft to read more like an article.