User:Wiki811pedia/Misogyny/Lshane23 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? (provide username)Wiki811pedia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Wiki811pedia/Misogyny

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 section is really good. It introduces the topic very well with various links when related topics are mentioned.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Content is very relevant. It is difficult for me to tell how much of the work is the work of the writer and how much was just from the Wikipedia page. My suggestion would be to split up the third paragraph into several points. This paragraph in particular seems to jump around a lot. For example, one second you are talking about white supremacy and mass murders, and next you are talking about misogyny online. These are all good points but if you are going to include them all, there needs to be more information about each of them.

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
The content does seem to be pretty neutral. One thing to look at is that the only geographical location mentioned in the article is the United Kingdom. I am wondering if you can include some more examples of other places.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I would assume that all the sources and references are done well based on the ones that are available (clickable). The issue is that after the first paragraph I can see that there are citations but they are not clickable. Maybe look into that but I am assuming it is just a copy/paste error.

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
As stated before, I think sometimes you move through information a little bit too quickly. Especially in that third paragraph, take some more time to dig into the offshoot topics. Also in the fifth paragraph, I think you can include more diverse information. Also, a small comment is there is a line in the fifth paragraph using the informal phrase "hot and cold" when discussing the UK's attitude. This phrase should be changed to something like the word "controversial".

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think this is really good so far. As I previously said, there are some cases where you can benefit from adding more information, but that is an opportunity to clarify the points that you are making and back them up with some more evidence.