User:Matchabae/Religion and alcohol/Acho01604 Peer Review

General info
Matchabae
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Matchabae/Religion and alcohol
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Religion and alcohol

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? I felt that it mainly focused on one of the articles major section, which was the idea of different religions and the views associated with them. I did see that a few religions were mentioned about the views they hold about alcohol, but not for all the religions that will be discussed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I felt that the lead was concise. I feel that the improved version definitely contained some more detail and facts about the relationship between alcohol and religion!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, Matchabae did a great job addressing ideas from different religions!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I felt that the content added was neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The religions Baháʼí Faith, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism seem to be underrepresented in comparison to the other religions. If Matchabae plans to not discuss these and delete them from the original article, then my comment here is disregarded.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, I believe so
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? is third source relevant? I believe they do
 * Are the sources current? I would have to say yes. Some sources were published in the 1900s, but I felt that these sources may not be considered current, but are helpful in getting important information across.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, I believe so.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? There could be? I'm not so sure.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do seem to work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is and you are doing a very great job!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did notice a small few. In the introduction it says, "Many research have attempted to clarify the relationship between religious affiliation, religiosity, and alcohol intake to aim a better understanding how the two interact." Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it didn't seem grammatically correct. A possible suggestion could be changing it to "Quite a bit of research has been done as an attempt to..." Also in the introduction, there was a typo for the word 'may.' The location of the error was in the sentence, "Moreover, within the same religious tradition, there are many adherents that nay interpret and practice their faith's teachings on alcohol in diverse way."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are two images included, but personally for me I didn't think that the images helped enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? It seems to be a basic caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I assume they are?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are located on the side of the paragraph, making it easier to see

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the author has done a very great job at taking parts from the original text and adding more information from the research they have done!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I feel that it packed some needed details. Some of the sections in the original article was packed with detail and lacking some detail in others. Matchabae did a great job at adding needed details to the sections that needed them!
 * How can the content added be improved? I don't know if you mentioned this is your draft, but I was just wondering if you'd still talk about or add to the different sections from the original article. It touches on the religions Baháʼí Faith, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, as well as the other religions you have added details to already. Would you keep it the way they are in the original? Delete it? Add some more details to them? I was just curious! You are doing an amazing job, keep going! YOU GOT THIS!!