User:Teddy0129/The personal is political/Baileyherman Peer Review

Lead:


 * the lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by peer
 * the lead in the unedited article could have a better introductory sentence by also including what the term means in a nutshell in addition to the other information already existing
 * the existing lead does not briefly outline the sections that will follow
 * the lead includes information that is also presented later in the article
 * the lead is concise and informational

Content:


 * the content added is relevant to the topic and adds to the unedited article's content
 * the content added is mostly sourced from modern articles and information, but includes one source from 1993, which is slightly outdated
 * information still needs to be added in order to fill in gaps and create a cohesive article, however what is already here looks like a promising start. All of the new content added is relevant and belongs.
 * the original article already pays significant attention to Black feminism, addressing a Wikipedia equity gap successfully

Tone and Balance


 * The added content seems neutral
 * no added claims appear heavily biased towards a particular position
 * the article already focuses a large portion on underrepresented groups, so this is not a concern
 * the information added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a particular position

Sources and References:


 * the new content is supported by reliable and reputable sources
 * the content accurately reflect what the sources say. However, I think the article could benefit from drawing more from the sources to increase the information presented
 * it could be beneficial to include audience responses to the artwork being elaborated on
 * two of the sources are current, while the other is relatively dated
 * the links work properly
 * it could be beneficial to include a broader range of sources, including type of source (journal, article, etc.) and a diverse selection of authors to ensure proper representation

Organization:


 * the content added is well written, but I suggest going through the new content and fine tuning each sentence to increase clarity and precision
 * for example, in the first added sentence, I would clarify exactly what you mean by politics around one's body
 * then, I would finish that first paragraph by explaining some examples of the paradigms between the personal and political realms of their lives that the artists are exploring
 * for clarity, I would put a comma after the word "culture" in the second paragraph
 * the sections created in the sandbox seem to be a good organization, however it is hard to tell with a couple of them blank--I can revisit!

Images and Media:


 * the original article has one image. I recommend including more within other sections to serve as a visual aid and to provide supplemental information
 * the image is well captioned

Overall impressions:


 * the content being added does help complete the article. The original lacks information in the art section and these additions help bolster this information
 * the content added can be improved by being more thorough. It would help to flush out each piece of information before moving onto the next so that readers are not left with more questions than answers
 * overall, great work!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)