User:Willardthecat/Self-care/BGreeen100 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?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * I am Reviewing user Willardthecat and the user article is about self care.

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
I was not able to find the user new content but I did go ahead and read through the article and the lead was not very clear. In the start fo the essay alone there is a lot of back and fourth and never a stable topic. The introductory sentence was not clear and very open. I do understand that self-care is a big topic but some advice would be, figure out what about self care you want to talk about that way the article could me more clear and easier to read.

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
There is a lot of content missing but it could be improved. Self-care is such a big topic, but there not just a straight road to self care, everyone is different, so maybe just thinking of one thing not everything would make the content more relevant.

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
- Tone and Balance, I would say was more of way to "achieve" self -care, not sure if that could seen as favoring of one position. but overall, I understand what the author was trying to come across. 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
There are multiple sources and references. Not all are up to date, I saw some of 2007, 2015

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
The organization for me, was very confusing because, I feel like the author kinda just broke down and added titles and not the right evidence or more details to support.

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
when it comes to images and Media, I am not sure how to show it in pictures. maybe more images of people trying to achieve their own self care methods.

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
I kinda want to start of saying that, I understand what the author tried to come across. There is room for improvement, try to add more way to do it, explain how its diffrent for everyone. I would suggest that maybe stick to one branch of self care because trying to explain it all is hard.