User:Fonde020/Non-binary gender/Viki.vick 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? Fonde020 (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fonde020/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, you all talk about what is non-binary so maybe add more to that by mentioning the topics/sections that will be discussed in the wiki page.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not, the lead has information relevant to the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the Lead could use more explanation into the major sections of the article put not necessarily too concise, currently it is a good definition to help with the understanding of non-binary gender

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is, however I will say that in the first section you mention Jacob Tobia but there is no follow up on that person afterwards which seem like a weird place to put them with no followed up description of why they are relevant to what is discussed in the section
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The Content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content missing, and nothing that is out of place

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims seem biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented? I think the sections of Discrimination and Legal recognition need more info, they feel like a start to a good topic to talk about but needs more information to expand on.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way or form

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is, many wiki links
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes it does
 * Are the sources current? Sources are current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links that I went into worked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content added is good, easy to read, information is clear, etc.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any major grammar mistakes, but it may be because I am not great at grammar myself.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content seems well organized and topics flow nicely with each other

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images in the draft, I think some of the images in the current wiki page should be added to the wiki draft because visual reference is helpful for readers.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? Yes its a good start, It is more concise and well written. The topic is mentioned with no attempt of persuading the reader.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think organization is very well done and a strength of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think adding more to some of the other sections that have little information will help the article improve and adding imagery will also be good.