User:Rachelscarseth/Woman Hater/Zxcvbnm70 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rachelscarseth


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachelscarseth/Woman_Hater/Zxcvbnm70_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Woman Hater

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here's my peer review for you,

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Not yet

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, very much. It introduces woman hater herself and extends the knowledge about it.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -The second part is "Socialization and Misogyny", but Misogyny has its own article in Wikipedia. There is some overlap between them. Maybe it will be better to make a link in the article to Misogyny's article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes. Although woman hater is not a new word, but the information about it is still lack on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, I think so.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No. their sources are very extensive.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes.
 * Are the sources current? -Yes, very much.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - It seems that the links are not done.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -It's clear but not concise enough I think, some sentences need to be shorten.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I didn't find one.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the article is divided in two parts end each part has its own little parts, which is very clear.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? - Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - The last image is a little bit small, it's hard to see the words on it.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Very much. The original article almost has nothing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - References are widely sourced and contextually coherent.
 * How can the content added be improved? - To be honest, this is almost a perfect work. Maybe simpler would be better.