User:Courtalbanese/Sexual revolution in 1960s United States/Alex Winetrout Peer Review

General info
Courtalbanese
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Courtalbanese/Sexual_revolution_in_1960s_United_States?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Sexual revolution in 1960s United States

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.)

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

Yes, "The Women's Movement" reflects the overview of the content added.

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

Yes, the introductory sentence clearly describes Second-Wave feminism and briefly explains what this movement was and why it started in the first place.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise and straight to the point, and is a great balance between being informative but not being overly detailed.

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all of the content added directly relates either to the Women's movement or Gay Rights during the sexual revolution.

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content added is unbiased and strictly informative, no opinions were given.

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

Yes, but some paragraphs are missing citations and I would recommend adding some towards the end of some sentences so the reader knows exactly where you got the information from.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes, the content added accurately reflects what the cited sources say, and does a good job summarizing the topics without being too overly detailed.

Is the content added well written, is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the content added was clear and easy to read, as the structure of the article was easy to follow along, and each paragraph transitioned into the next very efficiently.

Is the content well organized, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, each paragraph is broken into sections which helps the reader know where to go back and find related information to each section. The main points are spread out in a way that they all relate to each other, and each paragraph focuses more deeply into a certain topic.

Overall Impressions and Evaluation:

Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?

Almost, there are 4 strong reliable sources and all of the links work, so I would recommend at least adding 1 or 2 more.

Does the topic link in some way to our course material?

Yes, in class we have talked about second-wave feminism and the topics covered in the article directly relate to women in the 20th century, and also covers Gay Rights during this time period.

Based on what you know from the course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic?

Wikipedia users should know the importance of second-wave feminism and gay rights, and why these were implemented in the first place. Also to know the history and struggles that these groups had to go through in order to make a change and push for equality.

Has the content added improve the overall quality of the article, is the article more complete?

Yes, they have already added their contributions into the existing article, and fits really well with the flow of the original article. The topic is spaced out well and directly relates to the "Sexual revolution in 1960's United States".

What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths are the amount of content added, the use of hyperlinks that direct the reader to more information about a certain word or phrase, the organization of topics covered, and how clear it was to read.

How can the content added be improved?

I can't find many areas in which need improvement, but I would recommend adding more citations towards the end of some of the information being used so the reader knows exactly where you got the information from. Also to add some headings that clearly break up the topics covered to give the reader more direction and accessibility when looking for specific information. Overall, I think my peer did a great job of contributing to the "Sexual revolution in 1960's United States", as the existing article lacked context about the Women's Movement and Gay Rights.