User:Gisselolzba/The Female Man/HannSel19 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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

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?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Gisselolzba's work.

Link to draft you're reviewing

I am reviewing Gisselolzba's draft here.

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

The current version of the article can be found here.

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Overall Impressions:

I think that the planned additions to The Female Man in this draft are great! I especially like that the direct quotation in the lead section were taken out, and I like how the basic description of the events were expanded; this version reads as a much stronger opener. Overall, I think Gisselolzba did an amazing job, and the changes to the Lead, Plot Summary, Characters, and Structure and Format are all effective. There are a few punctuation errors (particularly in the Plot Summary), so I would recommend rechecking everything before posting. If possible, I would also suggest adding an image to make the page more eye-catching.

The following areas of evaluation correspond to the questions in the "Peer Review Checklist."

Relevance:

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, and nothing distracted me from The Female Man.

Neutrality:

The article seems neutral, and it does not appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position.

Viewpoints:

There do not seem to be any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Citations:

The links to both citations work, and sources are effectively used and cited.

Reliable References:

Facts are supported by an appropriate, reliable reference. The new sources both come from scholarly articles, and the information seems to be neutral.

Information:

Information does not seem out of date. The only potential missing information is the line "This disruption extends to" that trails off at the very bottom of the page; I would suggest double checking this line to make sure it is finished.

Additional Comments:

I really like a lot of the rewording and additions made in this draft. I would only recommend another round of proofreading.

For punctuation, I would double check comma usage in particular. For example, there are missing commas in the following lines: "She explains to the male interviewer the culture and customs of Whileawayans (a comma should be here) which differ greatly from Joanna's world. When Janet begins to explain to the interviewer how women in Whileaway "copulate (a comma should be here)" she is abruptly cut off by a commercial break."