User:Fonde020/Non-binary gender/LukieW 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? Fonde020, but the people involved be Alison Begaye, Tess Fonder, and Nora Schulz
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fonde020/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is nothing different from the original lead. It is copied word for word. Nothing new.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It looks really good, actually! While it isn't theirs (as far as I know, they could have applied it to the new article), it could add the cultural aspect that was added to the sandbox draft.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It hasn't covered the new additions to the article, but otherwise, it covers the basic concepts.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise, but needs to be a bit longer.

Lead evaluation

The lead is exactly the original. It works, but still needs to add newer aspects.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is! However, the article makes an incredibly huge mistake in including trans identities as non-binary identities. Trans men and trans women are not binary, but rather transitioning into the other gender binary. The article plans on covering cultural non-binary identities, but they have not written that up yet.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, as non-binary genders are being researched more thoroughly, all notable content has come up recently.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All transgender content should not be here.

Content evaluation

The planned content is fantastic, but plenty of the content is left unfulfilled and incomplete.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Some of it is, but some of it doesn't feel so.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't believe genderqueer should be defined as challenging the gender binary. I don't think non-binary gender identity should be meant to challenge or be seen as fighting against gender norms. They have existed far before being non-binary was established in western culture in the first place.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As said before, transgender related content should not be on here.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not as far as I can tell, there are just a few aspects that are misinformed.

Tone and balance evaluation

There is some content here that is problematic and seems to have a biased perspective of non-binary genders being created to fight the system. Furthermore, transgender related content should be on its own article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Despite them seemingly having a lot of content to build up, there is only two links of research added.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Considering they are examining non-binary genders' history through law and court trials, I would say yes.
• Are the sources current? these are very recent, yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

Sources are far too short for the amount of content within the article.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is consistent with the content it has.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not as far as I can tell, no.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? This article is well divided, but still needs to get separate sections for the few western pinpointed genders.

Organization evaluation

This article is organized considering all the cultural aspect it plans to cover. Furthermore, there is still aspects within a single topic which could form their own topic.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no images or media added.
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

There are not any images.

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? There isn't enough secondary sources. In fact, there may not be any.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Only two sources.
• 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? This doesn't reflect any other articles.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This draft still needs work, but if it was in-depth as it could be, this would be a huge step for understanding non-binary genders.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It adds a cultural aspect entirely missing from the original.
• How can the content added be improved? Finish this draft.

Overall evaluation

This article covers entirely new aspects of this article that were uncovered in the original, adding a cultural element meant to explore the long-term historical impact of non-binary genders. However, the article is still incomplete and needs to be finished.