User:Rockstar815984/Queer Tango/Minou0901 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? (Rockstar815984)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rockstar815984/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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant because the article only talked about one point of view and seemed to be taking parts when it comes to the dance men with men.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No everything the author wants to add is definitely related to the topic and she is even adding missing elements that can be important to this page. Nonetheless, I think that pictures can be added because only one is seen in the page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Even though the author tries to add information about women in queer tango, she seems to have a neutral thoughts and information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? When we first read what the author wants to add, it looks like she is taking parts and is not neutral but the article is taking part so she needs to take part in order for the article to become neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that Gender role in the traditional Argentine tango is underrepresented. even though it is not the topic of the page, it surely had an impact in the queer tango movement.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, in contrary, it tries to balance the information given by the article

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The two sources are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The two links I checked worked.

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?

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 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? The article is definitely because it widens the views on the queer tango and make the article seem less sexist.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Neutral, well researched and concrete
 * How can the content added be improved? Pictures.