User:Forclassaccount/Queer of color critique/Melyle Peer Review

Peer review: Queer of Color Critique
General overview: Thank you for your contributions to "Queer of Color Critique." You provided robust and thorough information that enhances the overall article and provides more contextual insight into the history of the methodology. My suggestions speak mostly to citations and small edits. For example, in the beginning paragraph (“The queer of color critique is an intersectional framework, grounded in Black feminism, that analyzes how power dynamics associated with identities of race, class, gender expression, sexuality, ability, culture and nationality influence the lived experiences of individuals and groups holding one or more of these identities.” ) I wondered if this needed to be referenced since you are defining the framework for the reader and this is the first time the term is introduced. Another example would be when you reference the book (Roderick Ferguson in The Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique in 2004), I would add a reference here as well. I noticed you hyperlinked the Combahee River Collective and I would also add a reference for the work.

Are you planning to also expand on the other authors and contributors you mentioned (Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw)? I appreciated that you made space for the theoretical forerunners as you mentioned, including how each of these authors and advocates contributed to the queer of color critique. I also liked your application of Gloria Anzaldua’s work and how it speaks to a more global perspective of queer theory. Your additions were a pleasure to read.

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? Melyle
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melyle/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kimberlé Crenshaw is mentioned although further explanation is still needed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? See notes in the overview. Specific questions and examples about references/citations are included.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?