User:Raizaj24/Gender diversity/Lessly.cortes 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? Raizaj24
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Raizaj24/Gender diversity

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?

Lead evaluation

• The lead of this article has been updated in the sandbox with new content that was missing in the original article.
• The lead includes a paragraph describing the article's topic. The first three sentences are concisely and clear about the meaning of the subject which makes a good introductory sentence.
• The lead does include a brief description of the article's major section.
• The lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.
• Part of the lead is concise in its meaning and information. However, the other part of the lead is overly detailed because there is important information that can be discussed in another section.

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?

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

• In every section of this article, the content added is relevant to the topic.
• The content added is up-to-date.
• There are a few incomplete parts, but I think the editor is working on it. However, I suggest making sub-sections in the "Terminology" section.
• There is an equity gap in this article about Gender diversity. The information in this article addresses the topic with historical information, and it is understandable.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

• The content added is neutral.
• There is no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
• There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
• The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. The information is added to inform the reader of the concepts or meanings of the topic.

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?

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

• Since the editor is still working on her article not all of the information added is backed up with secondary reliable sources.
• I checked the sources and they reflect the available literature on the topic.
• The sources that are in the sandbox are a few years old and they have a lot of information that can help the improvement of the article.
• The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors includes historical, and reliable information for the investigative articles.
• I clicked on a few links, and two of them worked but one of them is not available and is not reliable.

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?

Organization evaluation

• In therms or organization, the editor is still working on it. On the other hand, up to now, the content added is clear and easy to read.
• The content added in this sandbox has no grammatical errors.
• The organization of the article is still in progress. It needs more sub-headings than sub-sections.

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?

Images and media evaluation

• It does not include images that enhance the understanding of the topic. It needs more images to improve the article to make it more visual.
• This article's sandbox has no images yet.
• This article's sandbox has no images yet.
• This article's sandbox has no images yet.

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 info boxes, 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?

Overall evaluation

• This article draft is still in progress, but up to now the content added is very clear to improve the article's information.
• The concise of the information, it has no grammatical errors and it is easy to read.
• Add more sub-headings than sub-sections, add images for visual purposes, and use reliable sources to back up the information.