User:Adelehink/Dorian Electra/WikiBeani0 Peer Review

NOTE FROM COURSE INSTRUCTOR: This is a very thorough review and I think it gives a lot of good info about what the article does or could do. It should probably be expanded just a little more to flesh out some of what Electra has done at some of these events listed and there could be a lot more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages in that list, which will also increase the visibility of the page in their rankings. And while I think the sources should be good, they aren't yet listed in the reference section so will need to be formatted and inserted before it is placed on the official page.

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * The Lead has not been updated by my peer to reflect the new content.
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, but it is very brief compared to other articles.
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The Lead is underdeveloped, it is concise for what it has, but it could have more.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * The content is relevant to the topic, it covers Electra's life and career with citations on every part of the article.
 * The content added goes up to 2023 TBA which is up-to-date.
 * It seems like there is a lot of content missing but I am unfamiliar with this topic so I cannot give much input on what exactly is missing. I can clearly see that the personal life section is underdeveloped as much as the Lead is, with it only being a few brief sentences just hitting the surface level on who Electra is.
 * The article deals with identity as well as drag which is prevalent in Wikipedia's equity gaps, but Wikipedia is using the correct pronouns and is neutral on the topic of drag and even mental health. It addresses the topic of non-binary people which bring a lot of issues in the talk pages that I have noticed in other articles on other non-binary people such as Bella Ramsey and Emma Darcy.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * The content added is neutral.
 * I do not notice any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * There are a few viewpoints about Electra being genderfluid being repeated in the article which seems unnecessary because they are both stating it in the same way with no particular significance in the other statement other than it being in the personal life section. I am not sure if Electra is a particularly private person, but there is not much on their life other than who they are and they could be represented more as a human being rather than just their gender and career.
 * The content does not have any argumentative language that persuades readers to any position or away from another, it simply describes what they have done in their career with little to no description of their life.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * All new content seems to be backed up by reliable secondary sources of information, mostly magazines and news sites.
 * The content does accurately reflect what the sources say. Many of the articles are descriptors of the music videos Electra released with the videos attached to it.
 * There are a few sources that are thorough but most are not, being a few paragraphs or less. Source number 71 from the guardian is a good, thorough source that goes over Electra's life and could be a good source to add onto the personal life section.
 * The sources are current and have been added recently, but there could be more sources added now as the latest one was retrieved in 2020.
 * I am not sure if the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. It seems that they are well-versed in understanding the LGBTQ+ community, which is inclusive of historically-marginalized individuals from the LGBTQ+ community.
 * There are reliable sources listed on the site that are from reputable places like JSTOR. Most of them are from news websites which seem reputable enough to cover a celebrity.
 * The links do work, I have clicked through about 6 of them.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * The content is concise, clear, and easy to read. It needs to be developed more because it is almost too easy to read through with no depth.
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors in this article.
 * The content added is well organized and made the content present easier to follow with more context and exact timeline dates.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:


 * The article only includes one image that enhances the understanding of the topic, though it is just a side profile headshot of Electra performing which only gives one vibe when they could have many.
 * The image is well-captioned.
 * The image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The image is thrown in there in a simple appealing way.

Overall Impressions

Guiding questions:


 * The content added has improved the article, it is more backed up and understandable in terms of timeline and changes in the history of the content.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Adelehink


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adelehink/Dorian_Electra?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dorian Electra

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)