User:Dsackett253/Biology and sexual orientation/Sophiaschoen 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? Dsackett253
 * 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?
 * It describes it as a subject of research, but I feel as though that's a bit week in terms of defining what the topic is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It could be slightly more detailed, as there's a lot of information in the article. It only states that there are genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that influence the topic. It should probably mention the biological factors, political aspect, and the evolution which are all topics within the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it doesn't
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is not overly detailed. If anything it could use more details.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it's all relevant to the topic however it's extremely dense. Since it's a research topic it's understandable that the article includes many research studies done, but considering this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I would say some of this information is unnecessary. It's just so packed full of research that was done (the "scientific research and studies" heading is the longest part of the whole article). While it's all relevant, it doesn't seem like this article needs all of this research.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * A lot of the studies mentioned are from 2000 or 2008 or other earlier years, so it could be said that that's not necessarily up to date. However, I'm unsure if there have been other studies done since then, but it could definitely use some updating just in case.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There's so much content I don't see how there could be anything missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Considering this article is about sexual orientation I would say yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * It seems relatively neutral considering there are so many studies included by other people, so it's not leaning in one direction/author perspective. Most of the language consists of things like "scholars suggest" or "this research indicates" so it's not leaning towards one way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It doesn't seem like it. The article is trying to represent how biology may be connected to sexual orientation, and I think it does a good job of that, the information is just slightly overwhelming. But again, since there are a lot of different research studies from varying people I think it does an ok job of not leaning in one direction.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I feel like it mentions mainly homosexual and heterosexual relations. I would say gay vs straight is certainly represented, yet there's a lot of different sexual orientations to consider and I don't think those other viewpoints are really there.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I think with the numerous scientific studies that are included in this article it could be trying to show that yes, biology and sexual orientation are connected and here's proof. Yet That's also the articles topic so I don't feel as though it's necessarily persuading the reader one way or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are some paragraphs that have an adequate amount of sources linked, but there are also many big paragraphs that only have one source linked at the very end of the article. So adding in more sources and verifying that the information can be backed up would be good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, lots of the sources are reliable peer reviewed or scholarly articles as well as reliable news sources etc. There are also so many as well (124) and they all relate to the article's topic in some way or another. There's lots of representation of varying viewpoints and topics related to sexual orientation, so I would say the sources are good.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They vary. Some are from 2016 and some are from 1992, so I would think some are reliable while others are perhaps less so.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes they and since they're mainly LGBTQ+ groups they add to the diversity of the sources and the article.
 * 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?
 * It's definitely well written but, again, very dense. I think someone reading it would need to have a huge passion for reading scientific studies and research information. In that sense it's not super easy to read but it is clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Again, that "Scientific research and studies" section is so large and has so many different studies that it's very overwhelming. So maybe weeding out what is necessary information would be good. Other than that I think the sections are important for discussing the topic, but could definitely use some dumbing down.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There's one image which doesn't really add anything. Maybe adding some graphs could help? Or some color?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Well there's only one image but that image is in the perfect spot.

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?