User:Skyfoy/Victory rolls/Klromero Peer Review

Peer review Skyfoy Victory rolls
I read your article thoroughly, Your introductory sentence was written coherently. You gave a great explanation about what your article was about. The content you added in the article was relevant to the topic, you talked about the history this hair style has had, and the struggles the women had when this era occur. When reading the article I didn't spot any biased from the authors perspective. I actually thought it was pretty neutral to me, particularly because it's about hair styles, you can't be biased with hair looks. All the information she provided is backed up by reliable sources, that support her claim throughout the article. I also took the time to visit a few of the websites she provided information from and they're great sources. The information was well written, she added the content topics that were accurate to her information. I didn't see any grammatical errors or spelling errors. She added an image that demonstrated the topic, although you didn't add a caption including background information saying who the person was, the date this image took place at, etc. I do believe this article has met the Wikipedia requirements, she has done the content titles, links, sources, definitions, images, etc. I do believe with the new information that she has researched; this article has been improved and given more detailed information to let others know about the Victory rolls.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

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?

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?

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