User:Brianbuigwu/Tone policing/Rabbits65 Peer Review

General info
user:Brianbuigwu
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Brianbuigwu/Tone policing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Tone policing

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?
 * Right now it looks like you guys are working on the lead in a few different places, there's the italicized section added at the top, and the 'Lead: Tone Policing and Politics' section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Currently, the sandbox uses the same introductory sentence as the published article. The original introductory sentence is perfectly adequate, so you should be fine to keep that as is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It appears that you all are working on sectioning out your content right now, so it's totally fine that you don't have a section description in the lead yet. Once you have decided on your sections, it should be a pretty simple addition.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Again, since the sections are still a work in progress, you'll be adapting the sections and lead as you go, so that can be another edit made later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Right now, the lead is at a good length. Your groups' addition is very concise, neutral, and effective; I would consider cutting or relocating the part about the Everyday Feminism comic, and just using the original first paragraph plus the italicized section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is most likely relevant to the topic, however, the section 'The Emergence of the Angry Feminist' discusses in depth a preexisting article. Rather than summarizing that article, think about how you can tie that event to the definition of tone policing you gave in the lead section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It appears that you all chose to add a source from 2003. While the topics discussed may still be relevant, make sure you balance it out with more current sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Obviously this is a work in progress, but I would primarily focus on tying the definition of tone arguments to your new examples. Some of the language in the original lead section is biased or unnecessary, so be sure to cut that as well. Also, the rhetorical 'would you believe a bra burning?' should be removed.

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?
 * For the most part, you all do a good job of staying pretty neutral! Try not to speak in absolutes about tone and intention, and make sure you add sources when you make claims on how the audience perceived certain events.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current?
 * You have a very thorough reference list and cite your sources frequently! There's one source from 2003, but as long as it's used alongside more current sources, you should be fine. The information you provide matches, without plagiarizing the information in your sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The authors of the sources referenced are primarily white women. As a subject which heavily involves feminism, the primarily female perspective is acceptable, however, I would perhaps work to find more articles written by people of color.
 * 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.)
 * I would highly suggest looking around on google scholar. I searched 'tone policing feminism' and found plenty of scholarly articles on tone-based micro aggressions (Here), call-out culture (here), the advantage of anger (here) and more!
 * 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! I'm sure you'll do a lot more trimming once you have your additions fully written & organized, but just keep in mind that you don't need to reexplain the content in other Wikipedia articles you reference, all you need is a sentence or two that gives enough context to be able to make your point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It seems like sectioning is something that is still a work in progress, but what you have so far looks good. Make sure you don't make entire sections for topics which could be consolidated under one broader umbrella. For instance, you could consider making 'Tone Policing & Politics' the title of the section, and having the Miss America Protest (Emergence of the Angry Feminist) and 2020 VP Debate topics both fall under that section.

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


 * There are no images in the original or sandbox article. This topic doesn't necessitate images, so you should be fine without.

Overall you guys are doing great! Once you have your sections figured out, make sure you cut out any unnecessary info, and add sources wherever needed. Good job!