User:RadRemi/LGBT parenting/Lilysloan1 Peer Review

Hi RadRemi! I am reviewing your draft for the LGBT parenting article (User:RadRemi/LGBT parenting).

The work you have done on this article is incredible! I really enjoyed the court cases you brought into the trans parenting section of the article. Not only do I think it's important for Wikipedia to keep a history of these landmark cases, I think bringing real individuals into this article makes it more relatable and provokes thoughtfulness in readers. I think it would be a great idea to include some background information at the beginning of the "trans parenting" section to give the reader a little more context (this may be necessary for some readers just being introduced to these topics). Additionally, I wonder if you would be able to find some data or statistics about children impacted by transphobia and homophobia directed at themselves or their parents. I think this may be useful for LGBT parents looking for more information on how to deal with these instances when they occur. I think the most important change you could make here would be to really break-down the introduction of these sections and give as much general information about these topics that you can come up with. Oftentimes, I think this information on Wikipedia is someone's first exposure (likely because they are seeking out information on this topic), and it would benefit them to have as much context as possible. My article focuses on sexism in the medical field, and although our articles are on different topics, I think exposure to discrimination based on sex for children when it comes to their parents, could have long term effects on self-esteem and thoughts of capability. Thanks for adding such great topic and important details!

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)
• Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?