User talk:Rainalaine/Article Contribution

Raina's Peer Review
The lead is well developed. It is nicely constructed in a manner that flows into the other forms of fetishism. It was a very nice way of starting broad and then getting more specific.

Similarly, your structure is well put together. You have a nice manner of discussing the varying facets of fetishism. Your grammar is well intact and secure. That being said, there are certain parts that I feel you could add more to and make more cohesive and complete. For instance, you could add more under imperialism and intermixing; you only include one citation for the whole subsection, and there isn't a lot of information. While you seem to be creating these whole sections, and finding information may seem like a task, by adding more the article will be even more bolstered and intact.

You also seem to stay balanced. You aren't really choosing a side. You present different views and different types of this fetishism and discuss them rather than lean towards one element or opinion towards varying views.

Likewise, you give a neutral account of this fetishism. While the topic isn't so neutral, you make sure to show the facts regarding the fetishism.

You remain neutral because of your sourcing. You don't seem to be trying to be persuasive at all in the article. You use scientific evidence to help illustrate what is/is not true about fetishism and this helps you provide a neutral and credible account of the issue at hand.

For the most part your article is pretty complete. There are some parts that you could expand upon. You could add more information and elaborate on how these different types of fetishism take their forms in society. You could discuss more of the effects of this fetishism and even possibly discuss the opinions of each. The main thing I really like about your article was your reliance on the data. It was as if the facts and data were telling the story. In my own article I hope to adopt the reliance on data to really ensure that my entry holds the same merit and validity yours seems to.

Bwallace10 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Bwallace10