User:LyricRhodes20/Lipstick feminism/Ashley.restel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LyricRhodes20


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LyricRhodes20/Lipstick_feminism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lipstick feminism

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

·       Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not yet been updated.

·       Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The opening sentence gives a brief definition of the topic at hand, Lipstick Feminism.

·       Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does cover the included sections of the article with the exception of pop-culture (which is a one sentence section, so may need to be expanded, or added as a subsection in another area)

·       Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The covers history and other subsect of feminisms not explained outside of the lead.

·       Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that there are portions of the lead that likely deserve their own section, like history. There are details brought up in the lead that are not expanded upon later. Based on the sand-box content, it appears that you have the sources needed to fill some of these gaps, and improve upon the lead.

Content

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content in both the article and sandbox draft are relevant to the topic of Lipstick Feminism. Though the pop-culture section is sparse and does not really seem to fit as a stand-alone section as it is currently.

·       Is the content added up-to-date? The content in the sandbox draft is up to date. The main article may require some updating.

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Going back to the pop-culture section in the primary article, it is extremely short and only related to one episode of the West Wing (which I personally don’t consider to be a relevant part of pop culture in 2022). It is possible that this section could be utilized with current and relevant information, but I am not sure if it really even belongs. Based on what you have in the sandbox, it appears that this is not a major area of focus for your article, which feels like the right direction based on the other existing content in the main article.

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article covers women, specifically Lipstick Feminism therefor it does fill and equity gap.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added neutral? The content added in the Sandbox reflects a neutral tone. Your analysis indicates that you found bias in your sources, but you were able to present the information without having the author, or your own biases sneak in.

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are beliefs/ ideals covered in this article, but presentation is neutral and discusses multiple opinions on the subject.

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that there is an equal amount of time given to presenting both lipstick feminism and opinions that are opposing to this philosophy.

·       Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Content that has been added does not attempt to persuade, but rather inform.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

·       Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content that you have added to your sandbox is reliable. However, there are sources in the existing article which should likely be removed (specifically the unofficial West Wing fan page website)/

·       Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? I have not evaluated all of the sources in the existing article, however the sources that you have in your sandbox draft are accurately represented by your analysis.

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough.

·       Are the sources current? Sources in the sandbox are within the last 20 years, most in the past 5 meaning they are up to date. The sources in the existing article also fall into this category. Of note in the existing article some of the sources are listed more than once.

·       Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources appear to all have female authors, so they would fit into the marginalized group.

·       Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The articles you have chosen seem high quality. I feel that like mentioned previously, you may want to consider removing some of the existing article’s non-reputable sources.

·       Check a few links. Do they work? The links that I tested did work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content in the existing article is unbalanced, with some sections containing only a single sentence and sources, and others that have multiple paragraphs and sources. Additionally, I think that history should have its own section rather than being addressed in the lead. The content added to the sandbox draft is easy to follow, and well organized.

·       Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Content added to the sandbox is free from spelling or grammatical errors from my assessment.

·       Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content in the sandbox is well organized. The existing article needs some reorganization, including adding a history section, an possibly removing or revamping the pop-culture section depending on the availability of reliable sources for this section.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

·       Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Once drafted content is added to the existing article there will be significant increase in information, as well as reliable sources. Currently the existing article only contains 10 sources, with 2 being identical, and at least one from an non-reputable source, the content added to the sandbox will add information from 5 additional scholarly sources.

·       What are the strengths of the content added? The content added brings in fresh information, published over the last couple of years. It fills some gaps in defining the movement and expanding on much of the information presented in the existing article. The sandbox content will make the existing article easier to follow, and more fact based.

·       How can the content added be improved? I think that the challenge is really going to be incorporating the information and sources, into the existing content in a way that flows and remains neutral. Overall I definitely think you are headed in the right direction, your existing article has lots of room for improvement, but you have some great info in the sandbox.