User:Ig510/Sex verification in sports/Spectral099 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) Ig510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ig510/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? first sentence is confusing - (in theory, which is generally the case, etc could be removed/reworded)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? explains what sex verification is, why it happens, brief history, consequences
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, all content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? content seems mostly up to date, might be some missing from the 21st century section (only goes to 2016)
 * 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? yes- intersex people

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "Testosterone testing is not a valid form of testing because they can have certain levels and still be a different sex." could be reworded to seem more neutral- maybe testosterone levels do not always reflect chromosomes/ biological sex?, "Concern over men competing as women to gain an unfair advantage in sport competition is what drives sex verification." is unsourced, seems like more of an original conclusion than a proven fact or analysis by researchers
 * 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? no- more sources needed in history section, ethics section
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? plenty of sources
 * Are the sources current? sources up to 2019
 * 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? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? mostly easy to read and clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no grammar or spelling errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? organization looks good, could be slight overlap with the hormone testing section and the section that lists examples of cases in the 21st century

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, images of athletes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? the graph of acceptable testosterone levels could be placed near the hormone testing section instead

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?

Overall evaluation
I think adding those diagrams will be helpful and make the article easier to read.