User:Gracie15/Online Gender Based Violence/NoMamesFoo 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)
 * Gracie15
 * 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?
 * I think the lead is well written and I enjoyed the fact that there were multiple definitions because it is such a complex topic. I think it would be good to add a couple of sentences to give a brief synopsis and introduction to the sections that are going to be discussed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes several sentences on what online gender-based violence is and describes its multiple facets. It clearly describes what the topic is but doesn't really go into what the article will discuss moving forward.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead doesn't give a clear outline of what major sections are going to be included in the overall article. It would be beneficial to add a sentence or two describing what sections will be introduced at the end of the definition.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all of the information present in the lead is included in some way, shape or form in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead has the proper amount of detail to adequately explain online gender-based violence but doesn't distract or take away from the overall purpose/ main ideas of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content present was extremely relevant to each sub-section
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content present in the article is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't any content visibly missing, but I would add more information on the different forms of online gender-based violence and on the impacts section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Because this is such a contested topic, maintaining a neutral tone can be particularly difficult. With that being said, the tone remains neutral and presents the necessary information without showing any specific bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There aren't any claims that are intentionally biased, but I worry about the section that states that those who identify as female are more likely to experience online gender-based violence. Although this statement may be true and supported by information, it could be important to include information that represents the other gender that experiences cases of online gender-based violence.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no points that are visibly overrepresented, but I would include information on the small majority of men that experience online gender-based violence so that it's not fully centered on one specific gender.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, based on the information listed there isn't any evidence showing that this article is trying to persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The article has multiple secondary sources for each section of the article, adding a good deal of credibility to the overall product.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources listed do a great job of reflecting the current research and available literature on the topic today. This is a fairly new research topic so finding sources can be slightly difficult, but the creators of the article did a good job of finding a great deal of research on the subject. I would suggest finding more sources on the Forms, Impacts and GamerGate sections.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Due to the fact that this is a generally new topic, the majority of the sources listed are fairly recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The majority of the sources did not have links, but I checked the few that did and the links did work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-organized and transitions well in between sections. I would suggest that the section "GamerGate" because it feels slightly out of place after "Impacts."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not detect any spelling or grammatical errors in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content was well-organized and fit properly under each sub-section. Each sub-section highlights the main components of online gender-based violence and helps the entirety of the article flow well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There weren't any images present in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There weren't any images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There weren't any images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There weren't any images.

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, the article has the proper amount of secondary source and meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The article has an extensive list of sources and they collectively represent the available literature on online gender-based violence.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article lists section headings for the main points. I would maybe bold or underline the headings because they can sometimes get mixed in with the information listed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, the GamerGate section at the end links to another article that discusses other aspects of online gender-based violence.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * This is a new article, but the information provided, along with the detailed sub-sections, shows signs of a well-researched article. I think the creators are off to a great start and, by making small improvements to the different sections, this has the ability to be a fantastic article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article is well organized, has a great deal of sources and displays the multiple layers present in online gender-based violence. The information is very clear to understand and the article as a whole flows very well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Other than adding information and additional sources to several sections of the article, I think the content provided is strong and fully encapsulates the main points of online gender-based violence.

Overall evaluation

 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Be as specific as you can!
 * 2) One thing that I truly appreciated was the detailed definition given. This topic is new and can be present in multiple forms, so I enjoyed the fact that you listed all the different layers of online gender-based violence and the forms it can take. I was also impressed by the different sub-sections you found for the Policing section. Before reading your article I never truly realized how many different domestic and international organizations are working to bring awareness on the subject. You have a variety of sources/ forms of research present in your article and you approach it in a very informative manner. There aren't any biases and you give the audience a perfect insight into the different ways online gender-based violence presents itself and the lasting impacts it can have on individuals it targets. I think this article is extremely relevant to our use of the internet today and I think you truly encapsulated the growing issue of online gender-based violence.
 * 3) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Be as clear as you can *where* these changes should be made: to the lead section, structure, coverage, illustrations, neutrality, or sources.
 * 4) One thing I would recommend is to focus on inclusivity by including ways in which both genders are impacted by online gender-based violence. Although individuals that identify as female are more likely to be targeted by online gender-based violence, it is important to include information on how it impacts both genders (if there is any information available) in order to not present any bias. I would also recommend moving the GamerGate section above the Impacts section in order to improve the structure of information. With that, I would also add a brief introduction to the main sections in the Lead section to give the audience a look into the topics this article will cover.
 * 5) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 6) I think the most important thing the authors could do is add additional sources to several sections and elaborate on different points within the sub-sections (e.g. different forms of online gender-based violence and impacts). My article is relatively new as well so I share the struggle in finding plenty of credible sources, but I do believe that the Impacts section needs at least one more source and the forms of online gender-based violence (memes, hashtags, etc.) can be expanded on because those are some of the most commonly used forms of online gender-based violence on popular media platforms. I think it would be important to also elaborate more on APC and their purpose because there was a lack of information on why they are important and relevant to your topic.
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * 8) I loved the organization of the article, it was concise and easy to digest. My group is currently struggling on ways in which we can format our information without taking away from the main ideas we are trying to present, and your article gave me a new outlook on how it can be done while still keeping all your information. I also enjoyed the variation of sources you found. When researching newer topics it can be difficult to find credible sources, but your group was able to find plenty to support each of your sections and I want to be able to do the same for mine.