User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)/Jchoii97 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? (provide username)
 * Maggiehoang
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don't see much added however I understand that there isn't really much to expand upon for this section
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It is related to the topic. I feel like the additions made were relevant to the topic. There was additional information added to the Health Benefits, as well as the addition of health precautions.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel like the information about the precaution for hot drinks is not entirely necessary because I cross referenced with other hot beverage articles and that was not included.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not heavily but I wish there was a citation as to where the information presented about Earl Grey having antioxidant properties was found!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think there are areas in the Precautions that may be overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The Early Grey tea having antioxidant properties is one.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There could be more citations about where the information about the Health Benefits has derived from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes there are surprisingly many sources for this page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All of them are from 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes this was quite easy to read and could be understood by a vast majority of people.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some touchy wording that could use some alternative word choice but otherwise it is good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes I believe so.

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?
 * Yes the article feels more complete than the previous edit.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Yes I think adding the benefits is an interesting portion of the article as well as the precaution.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that the article could use more information regarding the origins (it is brief) and where this drink is the most popular. Also can be iced! :)

Overall evaluation
I think this is an article that I enjoy reading because London Fog's are one of my favorite beverages! I do like the additions you have made however I think there could be some work regarding the precautions and the health benefits of the drink!