User:Axelman03/Heteroflexibility/Nelischalich Peer Review

Peer Review - Nelida
One of the first things I would recommend is that you look through how you've written your new information, for some of it sometimes sounds like a persuasive essay. It is not too much of an issue but just look over and see how "matter of fact" you can make each statement. I also notice you didn't use the any links to other Wiki pages, I would just suggest looking through and seeing which terms or info already has its own Wiki page and linking it, just so that it makes it an easier experience for the reading. (Just one example that I saw was that you used the word hyper sexual, which some people might not know what that is, therefore having the link is beneficial so that the reader could read the Wiki page on it to understand). I would also go over and see what you can make more understanding, for example your sentence "having same-sex sexual encounters would not make one not heterosexual", while I understand it, it is worded a bit confusingly.

Overall I would recommend just deep reading what you wrote and looking for where you can improve/clean up. I would also keep in mind that you don't need to write as much as you did, quality over quantity. I feel the information you added was valuable but you wrote a lot more than I thought was needed, like several sentences just explaining the same point. You could go in and condense your info as needed, Wikipedia is a quick and dense source, you don't necessarily need to write this as an essay (adding content just to have more content, trust me I understand that mindset, but this isn't a paper).

Other than just cleaning up your info seems useful and very relevant to the article, I think you did a great job adding what was needed.

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.)