User:Sherly-ann-Ville-gas/History of corsets/Adriana.Santiago16 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? Sherly-ann-Ville-gas (https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Sherly-ann-Ville-gas)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sherly-ann-Ville-gas/History of corsets

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead has been updated, but I considered that the information from the original is a little bit more organized.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? In the draft and in the original article, the Lead has a introductory sentence. I think that the introductory sentence that has the original article is better, I found it concise, and describe it better what is the article about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I considered that the Lead in the draft and in the original article doesn't have a description of the major sections. In the article and the draft's lead only talk about some parts like the 16th century, Victorian era and the 20th century. Neither of both describe the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead in the original article and the draft doesn't present information that isn't in the article. I considered that all the information that the Lead present is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that the Lead in the draft is better than the article's Lead. In both is concise, but I think that it will be a little bit better if some information is added in the draft's Lead. Also, I think that it will be great if the Lead has citations that support the information in it.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is related with the topic but I thinks that it needs a little more work. I considered that it will be great if some information about those major sections of the article could be added. Also, I think that it can be improve reinforcing the introductory sentence of the Lead. I suggest trying adding some information that could describe well the topic, attract the reader, and is concise.

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added in the original article and the draft is relevant to the topic. I considered that all the information was informing about the topic of the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that in both, the draft and the original article, doesn't has content that doesn't belong, but I considered that in some sections of the draft and the article is content missing. Those sections are Etymology, Before the century 16th, the Victorian corset, and the Post-Edwardian long line corset.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I considered that the original article and the draft accomplish the Wikipedia's equity gaps and doesn't underrepresent any population or topic.

Content evaluation
I considered that the content has great information about the History of the corsets, but those major sections needs some work. I suggest adding some information that you learn and study from reliable source. Also, I think that the article doesn't have a lot of citations reinforcing the information that it has, because of that I think that it will be better if the information is attached to a reliable source.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I considered that the draft and the article has a neutral tone. I think that doesn't convince me or put me in disagree with something. The article and the draft only informs about the History of corsets.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I considered that neither the article or the draft have any claims that appear biased toward a particular position. I found it both neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article and the draft doesn't persuade. Both only informs and teach the reader about the History of corsets.

Tone and balance evaluation
I found great the article's tone. The article has a neutral tone and informs without trying to convince or put in disagree the reader with something. I suggest that for the improvement of the article is need it to be careful not changing the balance of the tone that the article already has.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In the draft, some of the new content added is not backed up with a reliable source. I considered that the original article has many information that is not backed up with sources.
 * Are the sources reflecting the available literature on the topic? In the draft, the sources reflect available literature or content about the topic, but in the original article some sources doesn't reflect available literature about the topic.
 * Are the sources current? I found the sources current. Also, the topic is about history because of that I don't think that it would be many information that has change with the pass of the time.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I check I few links in the article and in the draft, and they work.

Sources and references evaluation
I found that there is a lack of sources supporting information in both things, the article and the draft. I suggest that for the improving of the article some citations could be added that can support the information. A article with information supported by reliable sources it can be great article that would help successfully that many people can learn about the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content in the article and in the draft is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content added in the draft doesn't have grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that in the article and in the draft the content is organized, but I think that it could be better.

Organization evaluation
The organization can improve in both things, in the article and in the draft. The content is concise and clear but I think it could be better.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has images that enhance the understanding of the topic, but the draft doesn't.
 * Are images well-captioned? I think that the images are well captioned, but it would be better if the caption were more concise.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I consider that the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Images and media evaluation
All the images enhance the understanding of the topic and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? In the draft the article looks better and a little bit more complete.

Overall evaluation
The article has a neutral tone and great images that enhance the understanding of the topic. But, I think that the Lead and the content needs more work. I suggest for the improvement of the article that the information in the Lead should be more clear and concise, and in the content citations should be add to support the information. Also, I suggest changing a little bit the article's organization.