User:Ahmyers10/Straight ally/Celinewherritt 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? Ahmeyers10
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ahmyers10/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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, you could summarize each section in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes! Very well thought out
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I can't think of any content it's missing. However, I do think you should work on fleshing out the information for someone as if they don't know anything about the subject. As someone who has no prior knowledge with this subject, sometimes I would have to reread the paragraph because I would get confused. Try to break it down for people who have no idea what being an ally means.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Generally yes, but there are sections where it seems based on personal experience. For example, I would consider rephrasing where you say, "Despite them meaning well in their advocacy, there is still the possibility of disrespecting those they mean to help by not providing them with the freedom to control and advocate for themselves," this can be interpreted as personal experience unless you discussing more in detail how this is disrespectful.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The part saying "(and arguably most developed)" can be interpreted as biased, and it doesn't really add to your statement. I would consider removing it.
 * 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? Not overtly, I would just reread to make sure it represents all ideologies.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? Can be a little confusing and sometimes has really long sentences. I would break it up into easier-read statements so it's digestible for first -time readers on the topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope, beautifully written.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are good
 * 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? Yes

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?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Good job! As my previous comments said, I would reread it to make sure it doesn't reflect any sort of personal experience. Right now, it could seem like you're trying to convince them the 3rd level is the best level that allies should strive for, which shouldn't be the case. Also try to make it an easier read. Don't assume the reader has previous knowledge about any of this.