User:Flannel Tea Girl/Mighty girl effect/Anewman0411 Peer Review

General info
Flannel Tea Girl, Rabbits65, AllebaraEryc
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Flannel Tea Girl/Mighty girl effect
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mighty girl effect:

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.)

The lead is concise and the opening sentence provides a clear overview of the topic. However, the lead doesn't include a description of each of the article's major sections. For instance, it doesn't mention that the Might Girl Effect has proven to change norms beyond adolescence. All of the content added is relevant to the topic and seems to be up to date. The content handles equity gaps by discussing the effect that first-born daughters have on their fathers: making them more feminist and progressive. The content is extremely neutral, relying heavily on authoritative studies and sources to convey information in a matter-of-fact way. All of the sources are recently published, using up-to-date information. Some of the sources seem to be written with a bias (i.e. "Why men with daughters are less sexist"), but the sandbox does not reflect these biases and maintains a neutral, informative tone. There are currently no images, but I recognize that this group plans to add them. The article's biggest weakness seems to be the quality of the writing. Some sentences seem convoluted and borderline informal. For example, in the second paragraph of the "Who is affected?" topic, the group writes, "Ultimately, if the daughter is not the first born, there is no observable difference in the progressiveness of fathers’ opinions." This could be rewritten more clearly as "Only first-born daughters exhibit the Mighty Girl Effect on their fathers, making them more progressive." The informative tone and quality of the sources are the greatest strength of the changes made, with the greatest drawback being the quality of the writing. Overall, though, the content added greatly improves the overall quality of the article.