User:Ucalpoli/Sterilization of Native American women/Yasmeen.diaz 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?
  • User: Ucalpoli
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Sterilization of Native American women

Lead

The lead of this article is very well written. The first paragraph provides a pretty clear overview of the practice of forced sexual sterilization on Native American women, with ideas the lean well the remaining sections of the paper. In terms of paragraph 2 and three of the lead, I would argue that these parts would best serve under their own heading, perhaps under the title "Background" or "Pretences", as having them included in the lead section is a bit confusing. I would also recommend moving some of the information about the IHS into the specific IHS section of the paper for better clarity. Having said that however, this lead section in general is very good at setting up the contents of the paper, and the language is impeccable. Lastly, I would greatly encourage the group to label this section explicitly as "Introduction" to keep the article clear. Without these breakdowns, I would argue that Lead Section of the article can be a little too over detailed without clear indication of what the main focus of the lead is.

Content

In terms of content, this article does a fabulous job. It is my personal opinion that the content of this article is both expansive and all encompassing, drawing on a plethora of sources and opinions. What this article was deeply successful in was incorporating content both historical and up to date (particularly 2020 survey results) to further explain the topic. This article gives a clear voice to marginalized opinions, and yet hardly comes across as biased in its writing. I have little to add in terms of the actual content of the article - very well done team.

Tone and Balance

For the most part (considering the nature of the topic) the article is written from a neutral, fact based perspective. Not many of the claims appear heavily biased, however I would suggest further research for the parts regarding Section "Effects of sterilization" - particularly regarding the part about how the idea of sexual sterilization brought shame to a Native American Woman. I believe that this addition requires slight clarification derived from the citation, as it stands out a bit in comparison to the tome of the rest of the paragraph - just a suggestion! Overall, I believe this article holds great strength in representing a plethora of viewpoints, from Native Women, Health Officials, and that of the United States Government. Well done again!

Sources and References

In terms of sources, I believe this is the greatest strength of this article. The list of sources for this paper is greatly extensive, with a great range of the types of the sources. This group was able to incorporate both historical and present-day sources, statistical and census data, primary and secondary sources, as well as a great list of academic sources. Also, the diversity in these sources is great, with sources coming from sociological, political, and medical backgrounds. It is clear that the choices of sources in this article was well thought out and well employed. All links work, and the sources are expertly weaved throughout the article. Lastly, the use of other Wikipedia hyper links were both strategic and helpful to the further explaining of topics in the article. stellar work!!!

Organization

For the most part, the article is clear and easy to read. While some sections are longer than others, for the most part the length of each section is representative of the information provided. Again, I would recommend revisions to the Lead/Introductory part of the article for more clarity however. The remainder of the sections are very clear and beneficial however.

Images and Media

I believe the use of images and media in this article were successful, however I would like to see more. The image used to describe the propaganda for sexual sterilization of women was very well employed and helped the reader better understand the section. I believe this contribution was successful and I would encourage more of this in the article.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

This article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements plenty, with a large expanse of variable sources independent of the subject. This list of sources is exhaustive and helpful, and the article follows the structure of many other notable Wikipedia articles with the subheadings, long list of sources, and images and hyperlinks. Brilliant article.

Overall impressions

All in all, I believe this article is extremely well written. It is clear that this team took a lot of time to write and revise this article and I would like to extend a well done to this group.

Greatest Strength: Depth and care of the article. This article represents a large amount of ideas in a concise and synthesized way that makes it engaging for the reader. Also, in terms of sources, the list is exhaustive and well employed. Woo!

Greatest area of opportunity: My greatest area of opportunity to recommend would be revising the lead section of the article. The lead is where you hook your reader and provide a framework for the rest of the article, so you want it to be focused.

Overall evaluation

86% - 90%