User:Mochimeadows/Cross-dressing/Devon Matson 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? (provide username) : Mochimeadows
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mochimeadows/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • yes the lead has been updated and I can understand the new content they are adding
• 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?
  • no, but they are expanding on a present article, focusing on one section so this doesnt apply.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • this doesnt apply
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • this doesnt apply since they are adding to an article

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • I'm not positive because I was unable to follow their sources.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There were no sources for one part of the article and so that content was missing
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes. It deals with cross-dressers in America and their history.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, it all appears to be providing historical context
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I dont think so. Both male and female cross dressers are addressed.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • I dont think so. I think they did a good job stating the information.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Other than the other wiki articles they linked, I was unable to check their sources because they didn't link them
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Other than the other wiki articles they linked, I was unable to check their sources because they didn't link them
• Are the sources current?
  • Other than the other wiki articles they linked, I was unable to check their sources because they didn't link them
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Other than the other wiki articles they linked, I was unable to check their sources because they didn't link them
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The wiki articles that they linked work but I was unable to check their sources because they didn't link them

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes it is very well written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • None that I could spot.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, it is organized very well.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • N/A
• Are images well-captioned?
  • N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • N/A

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 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?
  • The content has added more information about the history of cross-dressing the United States, which is previously lacking. It helps making the article more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths are that it effectively summarizes different parts of the history, including male and female cross-dressers.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Linking the sources is one of the only ways that I noticed the content could be improved!

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article was really well written and provided a lot of need content to expand on the original page!