User:17lpratt/Violence against prostitutes/Corrinfish Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) 17lpratt
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:17lpratt/sandbox
Lead
[edit]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? Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.
Lead evaluation - It is concise and to the point, strictly details what will be explained in the following paragraphs.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, 2007, 2016, 2017. One source that provides content is dated 1990, but is still considered reliable and relevant to the topic.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No
Content evaluation - The content is up to date, relevant to the topic, with no missing content that should be added.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation - The article was written neutral, with no present bias portrayed throughout.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation - The content is backed up by a reliable secondary source, reflects the topic precisely and the select sources have a wide array of diverse authors.
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation - The paragraphs are organized well, allowing for the reader to easily follow the points provided throughout.
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
- Are images well-captioned? No
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added? Simply providing the facts derived from the sources and staying strictly neutral.
- How can the content added be improved? Possibly adding a subtitle
Overall evaluation
[edit]I feel as if this article was written very well. The draft is organized very well, and is easy to read. I like how you first explain what you will be discussing and the study that applies to the main topic. Understanding what social stigmas are present in society, in regards to transgender sex workers, is important if one does not understand what those are. However, I like how you broke up the two paragraphs: introduction then an easy transition into the study. Adding another subtitle could be something to think about given that the study holds a lot of content and the first paragraph primarily discusses social stigmas of transgender sex workers. Only a suggestion, however I feel the point you are trying to convey is easily portrayed for readers to understand and is written substantially well. Great Job, I learned something new today!