User:Fonde020/Non-binary gender/Macylynn27 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?
  • Alison, Tess, Nora
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Non-binary gender

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • I don't see any dramatic change in the lead of the article
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The introductory topic defines Non-binary gender which is the whole topic of the article.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead contains a table of contents which links to different parts of the article instead of describing them.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Added is a link to all the different gender identities. These are not mentioned in the article, though, because they link to their respective wiki pages. I do think this is a valuable contribution to the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise and easy to understand.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • In the definitions and identity section, there is information added about a Jacob Tobia. As this isn't really expanded on in the article I feel like it is a little out of place.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes the added content is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is a section added in the pronoun area mentioning 2016 pronoun pins. That should either be elaborated on or removed.
  • I also think that a few of the sections are very small. There are who sections set aside for single definitions. I think they should either be expanded on or included into other sections.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content is neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • All claims are neutral
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All viewpoints are equally represented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • There isn't a whole not of new content as far as I can see.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • There are a ton of sources. And yes they do
• Are the sources current?
  • There is a wide range of dated sources. There are some 2006, some 2012, some 1996, and some from 2019.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Not really. The added content needs to be expanded on.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Mostly just sentence fragments.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The content is well organized into sections, but these sections are not very well developed.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • The original article does include symbols that enhance the topic.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • As far as I can tell
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

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?
  • It has added to the article but I don't think that it is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The added links to various gender identities is very helpful I think.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • By adding more of it.

Overall evaluation

Overall I think the article contains good information that just needs to be expanded on.