User:Abdemo0912/The Myth of Mars and Venus/Mihailooo02 Peer Review

Peer review
PEER REVIEWER: Mihailo

REVIEW COMPLETED: 11/19/2020

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This is Mihailo's complete peer review for Mostafa (Abdemo0912). I have also attached comments directly on Mostafa's sandbox draft, but am also completing this just in case. It seems to me that Mostafa created an article, which is why his sandbox only contains one sentence. Hence, I am reviewing the article. However, I also left my comments on the sandbox draft.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? I am reviewing Abdemo0912
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: The Myth of Mars and Venus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, as far as I see and understand, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Mostafa.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there are two introductory sentences that clearly define the articles topic in ways that are concise and understandable.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. Hence, one thing that Mostafa can work on in the future - moving toward the final deliverable - is to make sure that he does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I do believe so. Since this appears to be a novel article, I believe that all the information in the lead qualifies as novel.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. It has only two sentences, and I would actually suggest that another sentence or two be added. Perhaps a sentence or two that gives more context to both the original book and the response that this article mainly talks about.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I think the lead is good. It has one sentence which describes the original book and another that describes the response that this article covers. However, I would challenge Mostafa to expand on this. I think something good and useful would be a sentence or two that put all of this into perspective. Why is the second author replying? How did the first book come to be, in what context? Same with the second one?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic in a sense that the content describes Cameron's views, as well as the ways in which these views refute the previously held views in the first book.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do believe that there is content missing. For one, the plot of the book, if it exists. If not, then whatever other substance is present. Overall, I feel like the article needs to be more substantive than it is at the present moment. We only have a brief interpretation, but other than a brief interpretation we really lack substantive material. What is the book about? Wat are the specific examples in which it rejects the opinions of the author of the first original book? I think these would be great starting points.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? To my understanding, the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not appear to address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content as it stands right now is decent. There appears to be a short paragraph which is concise and well written that talks about the main things that Cameron argues in favor of and outlines the main things she is against. There is another sentence which outlines some of the main takeaways from the book as well as its conclusion. This is all nicely written too.

However, there is a big gap between the conclusion and the previous paragraph which really just talks about some of the authors main viewpoints. It feels like the article lacks substance here. What is the plot of the book? What are its other contents? What are some of the specific examples in which Cameron attempts to rebut the views held by the author who she is responding to? How does the book begin? What is the context behind it? These are all some of the questions that I believe would be useful to keep in mind as Mostafa keeps working on this.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The tone of the content is neutral. It does a great job of describing some of the key stances held by Cameron and some of the key takeaways from the book without being biased and taking any side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Going off of what I have previously said - no. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. To the contrary, I believe Mostafa did a great job of staying neutral and distancing himself.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that what is underrepresented is, like I have said before, the substance of the book. Nothing feels overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Mostafa does a great job of staying neutral and distancing himself.

Tone and balance evaluation
Both the tone and balance appear good. I would advise you to try to keep them as they are. You are doing a great job!

Only negative here is that I do feel the core substantive parts of the book are underrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. Second sentence in the lead and the first paragraph in the details subsection lack a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I do believe that the sources used are thorough. However, Mostafa should consider looking at a few other additional interpretations of the book he is writing about. It might broaden his understanding and hence enrich his Wikipedia article.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources appear to be current; they are from 2007 and 2008.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I do believe the answer here is no. Mostafa only uses the original book and the response by Cameron as sources. Both of the authors are white. I would like to see him expand on the bibliography and include some interpretations of the book into the article as well.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links appear to be working fine.

Sources and references evaluation
I think that the two sources Mostafa has so far are relevant and current. However, a couple of issues here are that the second sentence in the lead and the first paragraph in the details subsection lack a citation. If these are Mostafa's interpretations, those are nice, and I applaud his understanding of the work, but to my understanding Wikipedia demands citations for these things so Mostafa will have to find published interpretations of this work that confirm his understanding of the same. Hence a good course of action would be to expand the references list, possibly by looking into other authors' interpretations of Cameron's work! The links appear to be working fine, and the sources are relevant, like I mentioned. They do not involve minority authors, so perhaps trying to get this in too would be nice.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well-written, it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few small stylistic things that I personally do not like, but no, nothing out of the ordinary.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is well organized and broken down into sections.

Organization evaluation
Nothing too crazy to say here. Everything looks fine. I would just take a little extra care about the particular style of your writing, but other than that, grammar and everything syntax-wise looks good.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The only image added is the cover of the book and I appreciate it. I do feel like it enhances understanding a little, it gives a visual idea of the book.
 * Are images well-captioned? The one image added appears to be well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations to my understanding.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the one image present is presented in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
Everything here looks good. I would challenge Mostafa to possibly go ahead and add a few more pictures just to further enhance the reader's understanding of the book, but other than that, the image added is good, well-captioned, adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and is presented 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? No, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements - i.e., it is not supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. This is one thing Mostafa needs to work on, finding more reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is not exhaustive, it only includes primary sources - the two books. Hence, one thing that I would challenge Mostafa to do is to go ahead and find secondary sources and interpretations of the book(s) he is writing about. This will help make his article stronger.
 * 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? I do believe it does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it does this. I believe it links to gender studies.

New Article Evaluation
The article links to gender studies and it follows the patterns of other small articles - which is great. However, it has some issues here. First, it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements - i.e., it is not supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. This is one thing Mostafa needs to work on, finding more reliable secondary sources. Second, the list of sources is not exhaustive, it only includes primary sources - the two books. Hence, one thing that I would challenge Mostafa to do is to go ahead and find secondary sources and interpretations of the book(s) he is writing about. This will help make his article stronger.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This is a novel article it appears, so perhaps tackling this is a bit tricky. I do believe that what Mostafa has so far does improve the quality and aid the understanding but I have also mentioned in the past that I believe it also lacks substance at other points.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are that it is clear and concise, as well as that it does a good job of interpreting some of the thoughts behind Cameron's writing.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by adding more sources and by adding more substance.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is good. It does a good job of delineating - in clear and concise language - some of the key takeaways of this book. However, some of the main things I would like to see improved on are adding more sources as well as adding more substance to the article.