User:Robfix/sandbox

Gender Identity article critique

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Yes, typically every two to three sentences are backed with a source on the Wikipedia page. The sources typically come from medical journals or government websites, not blogs or the news. Some sources do lead to a 404 error (no longer exists) which should be fixed.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Yes, everything is relevant to the article. The way sub-topics are divided are a little distracting, having history and definitions could be split into two subtopics rather that being under one.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no obvious biases in the article for Gender Identity, any bias that exists will be in the definitions regarding gender identity.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Most to all the information comes from science studies and medical journals, typically from the 1980s to the 1990s. Stories that are included like the one where a babies male genitalia got cut off because of a circumcision mistake are typically through a news media outlet like BBC.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Theories are explained in the "Age of formation" section of Wikipedia, by displaying these theories it inherently under represents any other theory that any other person has created regarding gender identity and over represents the one that was presented.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

Most of the links work, some of them lead to 404 errors. There are certain parts of the article where a person says almost the same thing that was in the quote of a citation, though it doesn't seem intentional and that it may just be a general fact.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

All the information looks like it's up to 2014 rather than 2017, which is pretty much up to date but some studies occurring in 2016 also could've been added by now.