User:Ruthy Flint/Playboy/Gatsbypup Peer Review

General info
Ruthy Flint, Jessicashoey, Jhoffgw, Aileen216
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ruthy Flint/Playboy
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Playboy

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.)

The Playboy article includes a lot of detailed personal experiences and shares a lot of information on the requirements of Playboy bunnies and the people who worked there. I was impressed with the specificity and detail the group added and the amount of content they were able to cover since this is the first draft. The original Playboy article already has a lot of general information about what it is, so the group didn't need to include a lead. Content wise, I think that the group addressed important content that's not usually dealt in Wikipedia pages like controversies (which is the section that the Playboy group added.) It seems that the references used are reliable, but I would add more citations throughout the article draft, specifically the Sondra Theodore paragraph. I would proofread the article again to make sure all the spelling and grammar is good to go so that readers can more clearly understand the content of the article instead of the sentence structure, comma, etc. In the first section: "Gloria Steinem," I would add a sub section or split up the paragraph into "Playboy Bunny Expectations" or "Steinem's Playboy Discoveries" (or something like that) and then add Steinem's personal experience after that. I suggest this because I found that some sentences had lists of Playboy Bunny expectations, so adding them to an actual bullet list would help separate topics under Gloria Steinem. I'd also try change some sentences to seem less "story-like." For me, I liked that they added information in a story-like way, but for a wiki article, the article just needs to be informative, which I think is the most important so that readers don't get the information mistaken for a biased view of Playboy. I definitely noticed that they went straight to their point with no "fluff," which I think our article could use and again, the detail they've added is very impressive and I appreciate the effort of using multiple sources to create a full draft, which my group's article could definitely use since we have a lot of context to cover. As a first draft, I think that the Playboy article was thoroughly researched and the information provided was strong and clear.