User:Abains1721/Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States/Tasfiaxnawal 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? Abains1721
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Abains1721/Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States/Bibliography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic. It focuses on the mental health of youth experiencing homelessness and demographics of them.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, the sources used are up to date/ from only a couple years ago.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

This content goes along with her main topic and I don't notice anything missing. She uses quotes efficiently throughout too.


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

Yes, it talks about youth LGBTQ+ homeless populations. It talk about three groups of minorities that can all identify into all three groups.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content is neutral. It simply list backed up facts. The only slightly skeptical sentence would be that she included that solutions "should" be implemented instead of saying that people are working towards them.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I don't see any claims that are biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Overall, the viewpoint on mental health of this community remains constant.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No it doesn't.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, she cited all of her sources, and the sources are all reliable according to their publications.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, they are thorough and adhere to the topics she writes about.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are all from this century.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the content overall was well written and easily readable.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No grammatical/spelling errors were found.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, she separates the information into four sections.

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I think her additions make the article more complete and have improved the overall quality of this article by adding more about mental health.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The content is largely research based and everything is cited. It sticks to one topic and builds upon it. Her intentions are neutral and factual.


 * How can the content added be improved?

She can add more about how the mental health is affected and more statistics of the results.