User:Annasweetland/Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals/Journee Williams 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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Anna is only editing a small portion of the article ("Homosexual Parenting") and not the whole thing bu, what the lead has is sufficient enough for what information is already presented, it doesn't cover the whole section but gives a brief overview. The summary is only about one sentence long.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
THe content added would make this article generally better than it is now because it provides more depth to a subsection that is severely lacking compared to the surrounding sections. The content added will expand what is already there and the now, outside sources she used were from past 10-ish years but the oldest one is from 1999.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The new content is neutral because it's providing more background, I don't think there could be a persuasive tone present in the new writing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links presented work and are accurately represented by the new content. Two of the works are written by female authors! As stated before the new sources are around 10 years old and the oldest one is 21 but there are more recent sources (around 5 years old) that were used, and they are listed in the existing articles references sections.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There was an expansion of a small article, just to provide more information, so there wasn't a need for subsections (Considering this is a subsection). The added content is clear and easy to read and gives more background when necessary. There was also an example of a well known animal, the Laysan albatross, to provide context/ a real world example. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

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?

Images and media evaluation
No images were added.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall the added content will greatly benefit this article and provide some much needed background into discussion of homosexual parenting within the animal kingdom. The new content's strengths are organization. The organization of this subsection is well done.