User:Patriciatrinidad19/Gender Relations in Guatemala/Myepez1998 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead is straight forward and easy to understand .The first sentence gives a brief direction of what the article will relate towards. The lead has also been changed from the original one, I like the updated one better because it’s more general. The sections mentioned in the lead are also mentioned in the body. There wasn’t information in the lead that wasn’t discussed in the paragraph. The lead is concise and has just enough detail for the reader to understand what will the article be about.

Content
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic - the content is relevant to the topics mentioned and is supporting the claims maid in the article. You had good sources as well. I like that you narrowed down the sections as well because in the model article it was a lot to process. The topics you chose to discuss are more interesting and there’s lots of examples and information added.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - the content has a lot of information but I believe the tone could be changed so it’s not leaning mostly towards the women’s side. When I read the article I get the impression that it’s supporting the women’s point of view more than just being neutral. I think you could change the tone to make it sound like you’re just stating the information rather than taking a side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - the domestic violence section is kind of tricky in my opinion because it’s a sensitive subject. When it comes to domestic violence you can’t make any claims that would support why it’s okay so this section of course is in favor of the women.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - you could add more to the employment section. If you add more the section wont seem as biased. You could also add more information about the men’s point of view or just more about their struggles.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - There were sources placed throughout the article that support the claims. The sources seem to be scholarly and reliable. The links work and the sources are from websites that most people are familiar with.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - the content is very clear and easy to understand. I like that its general and easy to interpret what the point of the article is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - the article seems to be well written with correct capitalization and use of grammar.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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 for 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?