User:Maria.Au20/K-Beauty/Kristen RL 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? Maria.Au20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Maria.Au20/K-Beauty

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
The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added. The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections - the Lead provides more in-depth information than the sections. The Lead isn't very concise, it provides a lot of detail, often more than the major sections. I would recommend moving the statistics and data to the major sections, instead of having them in the Lead.

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 very relevant to the topic and up-to-date. I do not think there is any missing content, or content that does not belong. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and I don't think it addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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 is neutral. It describes why people use K-Beauty, as well as why some people oppose it and the K-Beauty industry. The viewpoints aren't overrepresented or underrepresented, and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor or against one 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 is backed up by reliable sources of information. While there are several news sources, there are also several peer reviewed articles, as well. The sources are thorough, current, and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The links work.

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 added is well written. I noticed a few grammatical errors. There should be comma, not period, between first and second sentence of the second paragraph in drafted article. In the second to last sentence of second paragraph in the drafted article, "Bee" should be capitalized. There should be a comma, not period, between what is currently the first and second sentence of the third paragraph in the drafted article. The content is well organized, but I would recommend moving a lot of the detailed information (like the data and statistics) that are in the Lead to the corresponding sections in the article. This way, the majority of the information is the sections of the article, rather than the Lead.

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
The article does not include images.

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 added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article. The article does seem more complete. The strengths of the content added include the information about the history of K-Beauty and why some people love it while others dislike it. I was not aware of the controversies surrounding K-Beauty, so I found this very interesting and informative. The content added can be improved by incorporating more information from the Lead section into the article sections. I also think that when discussing the history of K-Beauty, it may be beneficial to incorporate more dates/time periods just to provide more context for those who do not know a lot of Korean history or various tine periods.