User:Annabelle Cohen/Condom fatigue/Lmfscots 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? Annabelle Cohen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Annabelle Cohen/Condom fatigue

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?Not updated in the draft, but the current lead of the Wikipedia article does
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There was no lead in the draft
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, 2 out of 3 sources are from 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? condom fatigue in heterosexual couples would be interesting to include, but all current content in the draft definitely belongs
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, gay men

Content evaluation
Good start, needs another section or two to make the article more full bodied

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Good! Does a particularly good job at showing multiple view points

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? Somewhat, not currently enough to fully say, and two articles are from the same journal, so maybe more diversity in the rest of the sources would be valuable
 * Are the sources current? Yes, 2/3 from 2019
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, gay men, and all three articles have many different authors contributing
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good job, just need a few more sources which I’m sure will come with some additional information

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but only one section currently so I can’t really comment

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, but I think there could be more info
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Concise good summary of a very interesting and important topic that I don’t think is very well known
 * How can the content added be improved? Another section or two

Overall evaluation
Good job! Interesting topic that I wasn’t fully aware of!