User:Shavedsquirrel97/Health at Every Size/Visook 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 lead was updated to provide more clarity and additional pieces of information. It may benefit from adding more info representative of the major sections of the article (specifically the support and criticism sections). Moving that one paragraph from the lead to the support section was a fair decision, but it removed some of the summary for the article. Perhaps you could replace that information with a brief description of the support section.

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
I thought the information you added on the Minnesota Starvation Experiment was a good historical addition to the article; it might be beneficial to just have a sentence at the end of that first paragraph that transitions into the next so your added content flows with the content already in the article. The content you added in the support section also helped balance out the criticism section with insightful information. I think it could be interesting to add some more information to either the support or criticism sections regarding digital rhetoric (i.e. how is the movement being supported or criticized online?)

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
You do a great job at remaining neutral. There does seem to be more representation for the criticism section, but that might be based on what sources are available. If you could find more information to aid the support section, I think that would help keep a balance. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any outright attempt to persuade the reader to take a certain position regarding the movement.

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
All new content is backed up by reliable sources and seem to reflect the available literature on the topic.

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
I like that you added the 'person critiques' subheading to the criticisms section. It helped to make the section more organized and seemed to make the most sense given the flow of the information in that section.

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
I like that you added an image of Twiggy to complement the content you added about her in the history section. I also like that you added an image to highlight the support section; it helps balance out the image that goes with the criticism section. The addition of the images makes the article very visually appealing.

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
N/A

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, I do believe the content added improved the quality of the article and made it seem much more complete than it appeared previously. The strengths of the content added is that it's insightful, neutral information, and the way in which you weaved in the content to flow with the existing information in the article is well done. I would've really liked to see some more content related to digital rhetoric or even technofeminism in relation to the topic.