User:Nhannguyen2002/LGBT parenting/AdamTski 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? Nhannguyen2002
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nhannguyen2002/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No but almost everyone forgot a lead.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there are different subtopics.
• 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 as is

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, a lot of the claims are not sourced though.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the citations are within the past 10 years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the "research" section has no research even though it says there is research and other sections have no citations at all.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It addresses LGBT parenting which is historically unrepresented.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? I would say yes but some might say not because the sources only pertain to one paragraph and the rest are unsourced.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Adoptions and Positives says a lot of stuff about how it's a good thing but there is no evidence of this given.
• 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? Yes, it attempts to persuade people that LGBT parents can do just as good of a job

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not necessarily, only the one paragraph has citations
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I would say the sources used are reliable enough
• Are the sources current? Yes, within the past 10 years
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and no.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is mostly concise.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a couple grammar errors like "ell"
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized despite those issues

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 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? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? It adds to the content of the article
• How can the content added be improved? More citations for different claims and improvise the little spelling errors.