User:Gracie15/Online Gender Based Violence/Bais20 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? (provide username)

I am reviewing Gracie15, Online Gender Based Violence


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Gracie15/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead section is not clearly defined in a header, but since this is a draft it may come later!


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

I think the introductory sentence is succinct, but I think adding more to specify which technology is being used to perpetuate Gender Based Violence is helpful. For example, saying "Online Gender Based Violence is....."sexist rhetoric and prejudice against women through digital technology", or something along those lines.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

I am unsure when the lead section ends and the rest of the article begins. The different sub-points of form, causes, policing, impacts, and Gamer Gate are hard to distinguish from the other points, if those are the main points


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

A lack of a strong lead section prevents much of the main content from being present in the lead.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

A great job defining "Online Gender Based Violence", but the lead does not include the information that will be present in the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

I think the content is relevant, it is just hard to keep up with all the elements written, with the sources being cited with links right next to the content. Moreover for someone who might not know what Online Gender Based Violence is, it may be confusing to understand the wikipedia article, because it does not include origins, background, or how Online Gender Based Violence developed in the course of the development of the internet.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

I think a concrete event the author included in the page is "Gamer Gate" in 2014. However, I think this article leaves out certain populations of people who are marginalized on their gender such as Trans-Women, Gender-Fluid/Gender Non-Conforming folks. The article switches between: female, female identifying, and women which are not synonymous.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The previous response on terminology is an issue that is easy to resolve to establish accuracy and consistency.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

I think the content is aimed at being neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I did not read any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

N/A


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I think the only things is that hopefully the reader is against online gender based violence

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I think the author used through sources


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * 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?

It is well-written. Sometimes it's gets confusing with the links to the sources, so probably just improve organization


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

"Victims" is mispelled (reads vitims on the second to last bullet point under impacts.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I wish there was more distinguishing between different areas of the article

Organization evaluation

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?

Yes


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

I think the sources accurately represent a vast amount of literature


 * 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?

Needs more distinguishing between the sections


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Not really, except for the link to the Gamergate

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Since this is a new article, I think it adds quite a lot to the Wikipedia.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Sources!, Academic literature, and details of different actors such as APC and SIDA


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think content can be improved to be more organized, and consistent with terminology.