User:Andrewanthony15/Language and gender/Manofthewater Peer Review

General info
Andrewanthony15
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Andrewanthony15/Language and Gender
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Language and gender

Evaluate the drafted changes
1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

After reading everything from Andrew's article on language and gender, I can say that everything in this piece is relevant to the article topic. Although he has only one paragraph in for this topic, it does give a good introduction with the whole history and idea of language/gender in anthropology. He is able to give some key terms such as genderlect and how it was coined by linguist Deborah Tannen. But I felt that was just kind of thrown in there and not given some sort of key context behind it. Some of the information that he provides are good and all, but some just seem out of place and belong either towards the end or beginning of the article.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

While the article looks to be just starting out, it is sure that this article doesn't possess any type of bias towards their opinion or for others. This makes it neutral rather than a one sided argument. I did like how he incorporated how "for most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships. For most men, talk is a primary means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain a status in the hierarchical social order." However, it seems like something that could be used for the different types of topics that are introduced for this kind of article.

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints are neither overrepresented or underrepresented. This is not a biased or a opinionated article that a lot of people like to do, and that is what I like about it.

4. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Yes, they have citations and all the links work. Many of them do as some of them have personal incite to anthropology. However, it is only two sources for now. Maybe he will grab more later on, but for now, she has links that are good. Although he doesn't put it as you would see it in a wikipedia source. Its more like an essay for a class. As long as he puts them to be more like a wikipedia page with his sources, it would look much better.

5. Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The two sources listed by Andrew seem to be from books that have incorporated the idea of language and gender into it. This means that they have anthropologist as sources to incorporate it into a reliable reference. The information comes from a neutral perspective and doesn't seem to look bias to me, which is a thumbs up in my opinion.

6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

The only thing that I would consider out of date is one of his sources from 1975, which means that the idea of it can dramatically changed over these 50 years. However, if it does bring up issues and ideas that are relevant to days modern world, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It is a great start to it nonetheless.