User:Shavedsquirrel97/Health at Every Size/Lucymobe 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? (Shavedsquirrel97)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Health at Every Size

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 wiki editor updated the definition of HAES in the lead. They may benefit from incorporating more of the movement's history into the lead (i.e. what year/decade did the movement start to take off). Author Linda Bacon and the non-profit Association for Size Diversity and Health are both mentioned in the lead as having great significance in the HAES movement, but neither are mentioned or cited again in the rest of the article. Overall, the lead is concise and an appropriate length, but it may need to tie more clearly to the details in the rest 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?

Content evaluation
Most of the content added is relevant to the topic, and up-to-date. I'm not sure if naming Twiggy specifically is necessary, as many models and actresses during that time and in today's world are as skinny as her. It almost comes off as if you are naming her as a direct cause for the issue at hand, or a turning point in society's view of body image.

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
This seems like it would be a hard article to write and maintain a neutral point of view, given the wide range of scientific studies that often contradict each other. But I think the editor does a good job at presenting scientific research from all parts of that spectrum.

There are a few phrases I find to be a little biased. For example, in the "Support for the HAES Movement" section, the editor added the sentence "Some medical providers fall victim to considering weight an indicator of health and possible health issues." The "fall victim" part feels a little biased. Also, in the lead, the editor says Laura Bacon wrote "countless" articles about the topic. The word "countless" could be changed to something more accurate.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes, everything is thoroughly accompanied by sources and the links work.

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
Yes, the page is well-organized and grammatically correct.

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
The first photo was a nice add (body positivity picture), but I still disagree with the Twiggy addition. If the editor prefers to keep Twiggy in the article, maybe the photo should include her physique instead of just her face.

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

Overall evaluation
Overall, the Wiki editor added useful edits to the page. Strengths include the "personal critiques" section and the additions to the lead. Some language could be made more objective, as I said earlier about "countless" and "fall victim".