User:Bec1970/Effects of pornography on young people/Haleymackinnon Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

No, the Lead is empty and unedited.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

No.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The student added an entire paragraph on pornography consumption on the brain. The paragraph is a good start, but I think some of the grammer needs some cleaning off. I can tell that the author does know what they are talking about though.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, it is all relevant and adds to the overall article.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No.

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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, it is backed up with a new source in the References page.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes it comes from an academic journal
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, 2023
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, all by different people
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No, I think this source is strong enough
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, need some general grammer and wording changes though


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Some wording needs to be change in the added paragraph


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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 like I mentioned, some grammatical changes have to be made
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It adds to the overall article and adds some background on the impact on sexual activity to behavior
 * How can the content added be improved?

Wording.