User:Ranyamatari26/Elisa Camahort/Ranyamatari26 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? (provide username) User:Dunno.what.to.name
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Dunno.what.to.name/sandbox

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 is well-written, concise, and uses neutral language throughout. It gives a great description of the article that's brief, yet gives enough information to give readers a general idea of the article's topic and key points or topics that will be discussed in further detail in the article. The lead also gives a good description of the article's major sections, indicating the structure of the article.

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 relevant and up to date. The article does address equity gaps by focusing on the role Elisa Camahort has played in the empowerment of women by establishing her blogging site as a safe space for women to blog freely.

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 tone is neutral throughout the article because it doesn't include any biased views, and no views are over or underrepresented.

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 sources are current, reliable, diverse, and are secondary sources of information which confirm any information included in the article.

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 article is well-written, however, there are some grammatical and spelling errors which can be fixed with minor edits. It's well-organized with major sections clearly outlined that are concise.

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
There are currently no images available in the article.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation
The article meets the notability requirements and is supported by a great list of sources that are reliable and secondary. The article does include helpful links such as a link to the wikipedia page for BlogHer.

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
Overall the article is well-written, neutral, and organized. However, the content could be improved by adding more information, if possible, to expand on sections such as the section dedicated to her personal life. Also, minor edits can be made to improve the article's flow such as changes in word structure and fixing any spelling or grammar mistakes.