User:Fonde020/Non-binary gender/Macylynn27 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?
 * Alison, Tess, Nora
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Non-binary gender

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don't see any dramatic change in the lead of the article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory topic defines Non-binary gender which is the whole topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead contains a table of contents which links to different parts of the article instead of describing them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Added is a link to all the different gender identities. These are not mentioned in the article, though, because they link to their respective wiki pages. I do think this is a valuable contribution to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and easy to understand.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * In the definitions and identity section, there is information added about a Jacob Tobia. As this isn't really expanded on in the article I feel like it is a little out of place.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the added content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a section added in the pronoun area mentioning 2016 pronoun pins. That should either be elaborated on or removed.
 * I also think that a few of the sections are very small. There are who sections set aside for single definitions. I think they should either be expanded on or included into other sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * All claims are neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All viewpoints are equally represented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There isn't a whole not of new content as far as I can see.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are a ton of sources. And yes they do
 * Are the sources current?
 * There is a wide range of dated sources. There are some 2006, some 2012, some 1996, and some from 2019.
 * 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?
 * Not really. The added content needs to be expanded on.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Mostly just sentence fragments.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized into sections, but these sections are not very well developed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The original article does include symbols that enhance the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I can tell
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?
 * It has added to the article but I don't think that it is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added links to various gender identities is very helpful I think.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * By adding more of it.

Overall evaluation
Overall I think the article contains good information that just needs to be expanded on.