User:Ana Swanson KSU/Femicides in Honduras/BenRininger Peer Review

Just answering these questions in the order as they come.

Lead

(1) It does appear that the Lead reflects the overall content in your article (GBV). Although (and this is not made clear) are you trying to make a completely separate article about GBV in honduras or trying to add to the existing one about femicide? The former makes more sense considering the content you've produced; femicide is, after all, only one type of GBV and a subsection of your article (recommendation: in the femicide subsection, include a link to the femicide main article)

Going on the assumption that you are trying to create a separate article about GBV, I am assuming that the section underneath "Violence Against Women in Honduras" is your lead (what would come before any header in the actual Wikipedia article)

(2) Your introductory sentence does pretty clearly and concisely summarize what's covered in your page. There are only a few redundancies that I'd recommend you delete ("in the country" at the end of the first sentence and "the widespread nature of" at the beginning of your second sentence)

(3) All major sections of your article are covered in the lead except for the section on Human Trafficking.

(4) Nope.

(5) I think it's pretty concise, average compared to many other Wikipedia article leads that I've seen.

Content

(1) I believe that the content Ana added is quite relevant! As Ana demonstrates with the sources provided in her article, GBV is a significant problem within the country of Honduras, and having a repository of knowledge on the subject present on Wikipedia is important. Furthermore, she covered all the major types of GBV, as well.

(2) It appears so. All of the sources she cited are from 2017 or more recent.

(3) No.

(4) Yes! This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, providing content regarding a group that is underrepresented: Latin American women

Tone and Balance

(1) Yes, the content is neutral. I believe Ana's page covers the facts as they are, not taking a biased perspective or using a biased framework. Granted, none of the material she covers really involves facts that anyone is disputing.

(2) No, I do not see any bias toward a particular position. Ana is simply describing the phenomenon of GBV and describing various things that have been done about it, but her writing doesn't seem to favor any particular policy or political group.

(3) No, I feel that all major viewpoints are represented quite appropriately.

(4) I don't sense any degree of persuasion.

Sources and References

(1) In short, yes.

(2) I could not find anything in the article linked to citation [4] stating that 5000 Honduran women died from 2003 to 2016. Maybe eyes skipped past the sentence, but I just couldn't find it. Otherwise, after meticulously looking through Ana's citations 1-by-1, I can conclude that she has, in good faith, restated the information included in the citations in her own words.

(3) Ana's sources do appear to be remarkably reflective of the available literature on the topic of GBV in Honduras. Ana includes research journals, educational institutions, and reliable news sources both foreign and domestic among her citations.

(4) Yes, all the sources are current.

(5) Most of Ana's sources are number-crunching, statistical agencies. For this reason, her article is light on marginalized people as sources. However, in citation [10] - an article from Politico - there are interviews of numerous Latin American women who experienced GBV themselves; Ana's article directly concerns marginalized people and, therefore, acts to further Wikipedia's current mission of expanding knowledge regarding marginalized peoples.

(6) One improvement Ana could make in this domain regards citation [18]. Rather than citing a press release discussing the piece of legislation passed (The Law Against Trafficking in Persons), Ana could just cite the piece of legislation itself, or a more formal and more thorough summary of the piece of legislation. That way, a potential Wikipedia user could more easily pass directly to the topic of that piece of legislation.

(7) All of Ana's links work

Organization

(1) Yes! I found Ana's writing eloquent and quite easy to read. Although it was rough on the edges at points [the lead, and a couple other points in the article where Ana just adds adverbs or other things that are redundant or unnecessary (like, for example, at the beginning of the "Domestic and Sexual Violence" section, where she says "rape, which additionally ranks"- she could take out the additionally; the sentence sounds better without it) Also, at the beginning of the "Femicide" section, change "In regard to" to "Compared to". Overall, the article has a solid flow.

(2) No spelling or grammatical errors that I could detect.

(3) I believe so. I think Ana is well-prepared to make GBV in Honduras its own separate article. None of these sections would make any sense under the general femicide in Honduras article, because her material discusses many types of violence that are not femicide. If I would add anything, in addition to the types of GBV sections, I would add a "History of Gender Based Violence in Honduras" section

Images and Media

(1) Nope.

(2) No images.

(3) Nothing to do with images, here.

(4) Are we supposed to include images?

For New Articles Only

(1) I do believe this GBV article complies with Wikipedia's Notability requirements. Ana provides a variety of large, trustworthy publications not directly affiliated with the GBV issue as sources for her article (Politico, the UN) It rises to a sufficient degree of significance.

(2) The sources are indeed exhaustive. Ana has 25 of them, and they include all the types of reliable sources you could imagine for a Wikipedia article.

(3) Yes.

(4) Here is where I have some criticism. As I mentioned earlier, Ana ought to have a link in the femicide subsection to the femicide in Honduras main article (that is, if she wants to keep this separate as its own article... it would be problematic to insert all of this into the femicide article, for a variety of reasons)

I think Ana could add more links throughout to subject matters covered in this article that have their own Wikipedia pages, such as: domestic violence, Honduras, feminism, the Constitution of Honduras, among other things mentioned, to make her article more discoverable.

Overall Impressions

(1) I believe Ana has made Wikipedia generally more complete by collecting this information that she could post as an article of its own.

(2) This article is strong, given its variety of rich sources, relevant data, and information regarding relevant activist groups and pieces of legislation.

(3) This article is wanting insofar as it could include more historical information (history of GBV in Honduras, deeper descriptions of pieces of legislation passed at particular times and what instigated said legislation passing, etc.), more links to other articles to make it discoverable, and less wordy, redundant or needless language.

Otherwise, though, Ana did a fine job, that I hope my review will refine!

-Ben

- - -

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)