User:Road2tip/Friends with benefits/Bushfindsjesus 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? Road2tip
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Road2tip/Friends with benefits
• Suggested Resource: Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2011). Romantic Partners, Friends, Friends with Benefits, and Casual Acquaintances as Sexual Partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 48(6), 554-564. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/stable/41319041 *You might check out this white paper for further contextualization*

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Absolutely! The dearth of existing information on this topic was truly staggering, especially for a phrase that's gained such purchase over the years.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does, yes. The entire opening is concise and accessible to everyday readers.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It includes a list, though without going into much detail. That didn't bother me, though. It was apparent that the article was going to address those types/distinctions eventually.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The phrase "Netflix and chill" is mentioned only in the lead, though I'm not sure I'd call that a strike against this article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is both concise and effective in providing a brief overview of the topic and what's to follow throughout the page.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely. The author has included relevant theories that both expand and contextualize the topic. It remains underdeveloped, but I'm sure Road2tip will beef it up before it's finalized.
• Is the content added up-to-date? As far as I can tell, yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not in my opinion. Framing FWB as a manifestation of Third Wave Feminism is compelling and can be reasonably considered valid. Affection Exchange Theory and Attachment Theory are both relevant to FWB and its implications for those who enter into such relationships.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. Its connection to feminism and female empowerment may be the most interesting component of this article. The phrase is still fairly new, obviously, but the relationship/power dynamics described in the article's content sections have been relevant for centuries (if not millennia).

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes. I didn't pick up on any kind of "agenda" with respect to FWB.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not at all.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A bit more information re: Affection Exchange Theory and Attachment Theory would be helpful to readers hoping to gain a more comprehensive understanding of FWB and its theoretical underpinnings.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, although I think the "Critique" section could use a bit more evidence to back up its claims.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Absolutely. Works cited include an array of contemporary white papers/ studies re: FWB.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? As far as I can tell, yes.
• Are the sources current? They are, which makes sense considering the topic.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think it's safe to say that women have been historically marginalized, so yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? All clear!

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is, yes.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? This sentence could use some work: " It is more evolved and sexually expressive, third wave feminist defy the expectation that women's sexuality is simplistic." Need an 's' after "feminist" in this sentence: "Third wave feminist reject the notion that young women engaging in casual sex, FWB relationships, etc. should be labeled as "sluts"."
• 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? No. The picture provided doesn't add anything to the content, nor is it clear that the couple is even engaged in a FWB-type situation.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No (refer to my first answer on this topic)

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? This article is in far better shape than it was originally. Road2tip has done a good job of contextualizing the topic within the framework of feminism/female empowerment and self-determination.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Information re: feminism, female empowerment, self-determination, and various theories relevant to those topics, such as affection exchange theory and attachment theory, elevate the subject of FWB from one of mere pop culture reference, as it was originally, into a more emotionally nuanced examination of what may happen (internally and externally) when folks engage in this type of relationship.
• How can the content added be improved? As I mentioned above, the sections on AET and AT could be beefed up a bit, and the "Critique" section would benefit from additional sources. The last sentence, in particular, reads a bit too much like opinion. I don't doubt that it's rooted in fact, but I would prefer to see additional information to back up the claim.