User:Greciavalenzuela123/Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services/LB2020 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?
 * I am reviewing Greciavalenzula123's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The student has made no updates from what I can tell looking at the editing history.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead that has been there already does explain what the topic is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article doesn't have major sections. There is only a short lead about the topic and a few links.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead doesn't include information that isn't present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
- I think the lead can add a bit more information about the rest of the article that will hopefully be added soon.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * No new content was added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No new content was added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content missing is the ones that the editor said they would add such as LGBT minorities.

Content evaluation
- There was no content added by Greciavalenzuela123 when I reviewed this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No content was added.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear biased because there was no content added by this person.
 * As for the information already there, there is no bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the viewpoints that have been there are underrepresented because I have don't know much about them.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There was no content added.

Tone and balance evaluation
- There was no new content added. The information that was already there did keep a neutral bias and a good tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There was no new content added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There were no new sources added.
 * A source that was already on the site takes the reader to the "official website" and it takes them to "Taylor and Francis Online." This is an academic website that publishes books and journals of all topics, so I don't know if this is the best website to be on the page. I don't know much about the topic and I could be wrong. Since you can find journals then people can look up "Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services" but I feel as if that makes unnecessary work for the reader.
 * Are the sources current?
 * From the sources that are already there, yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I have checked the links that have been there already and they do work.

Sources and references evaluation
- The student has not added any new information yet.

- As for the sources and references that have been there already, they seem to be current and relevant to the topic for the most part.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No new content was added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No new content was added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No new content was added.

Organization evaluation
- There was no new content added by the time I checked, so there was no organization that I could observe.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
- This article doesn't have 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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
- This was not a new article.

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?
 * I think they should add more information about the topic to expand the knowledge that is already there.
 * They should add more reliable sources.
 * I think they should maybe add a picture.

Overall evaluation
- I tried to search up the editing history and I believe that this person has made no edits to the article.

- No new information was added to the article page by the time I checked on this article to help give them pointers on what to fix. There was only a small add to the sandbox saying "LGBT minorities." I think this is great to add to the article but I wish I could see the edits to help them add information.