User:Ethan.jl/Gay bashing/Gooeybert Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ethan.jl


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ethan.jl/Gay_bashing?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gay bashing

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Content is relevant to the topic - according to the already established grounds on the page, the two additions are relevant.
 * 'Up-to-date' - Very.
 * 'Missing info?' - Possible to add the information that the 'Dont Say Gay' bill gives teachers the right to report students coming out to them, but it is debatable if that matches the definition. Otherwise, all good.
 * 'Equity gaps' - I was surprised Don't Say Gay wasn't there ASAP. Both additions are mostly from a Westerner point of view however, so it doesn't address the bias present in Wikipedia.
 * 'Neutral?' - If it was a D&D alignment, your additions are True Neutral(yes).
 * 'Any claims?' - There are no claims so there isn't any bias.
 * 'Viewpoints over/underrepresented?' - Second verse same as the first.
 * 'Persuading the reader?' - Third verse same as the first.


 * 'Reliable secondary?' - The sources are primary. Maybe look for reliable news sources that covered these bills but I think the literal legislation is an exception? I'd say better safe than sorry and just grab one of the many reputable news sources who reported this.
 * Rest of the source questions - Yes. It's a first party source of the legislation. Several people had to write the legislation and sign it.


 * Organization-wise: I have one personal gripe: organize the information by year. It should be the oldest information first then the most recent(2010 Cali legislation to 2022 Dont Say Gay)


 * The information provided is beneficial and it's surprising that it wasn't there before. I would only change the sources and the order in which the two bills are written. Otherwise, good additions!