User:Matchabae/Religion and alcohol/Lunarmoon13 Peer Review

General info
Matchabae
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMatchabae%2FReligion_and_alcohol&redirect=no
 * 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, very thorough.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, already solid.
 * 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? Not applicable.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Existing article already had strange "non-Lead" introduction; not Matchabae's fault. I think their work was a good addition but long because article dives straight into the introduction.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, appears to be modern.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not applicable.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Alcohol has been part of various religious practices since the beginning of time, I do not know if I would say it is an underrepresented topic. This information may not exactly be brand new, but Matchabae made it relevant within the context of their article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Sentence sounds slightly biased: "Understanding the complex and the border between religion and alcohol use is important for public health initiatives, social cohesion, and individual wellbeing."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Sentence may be better phrased, and link to "Jewish" moved to forefront of sentences: "Many Jews embrace a moderate and responsible approach to alcohol, often emphasized during religious observances and social gatherings. While alcohol is integral to these sacred rituals, Jewish teachings also promote moderation and temperance, encouraging individuals to avoid excessive drinking."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not applicable.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, overall great job!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * 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? Yes, very thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Sources vary, ranging from 1980s to late 2010's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Appears to be good.
 * 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.) No, Matchabae did a remarkable job.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only minor copyediting errors, overall very impressive.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I can see all the hard work that went into Matchabae's draft.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Unclear.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Appears to be correct.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, looks good.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely a huge improvement!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? All content is on topic, well-delivered, and relevant/interesting.
 * How can the content added be improved? Be sure to copyedit for proofreading errors. Only critiques of Matchabae's article were already listed above.