User:Jnfowler/Black gay pride/Otol3n 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)
 * JnFowler
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jnfowler/Black gay pride

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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise
 * concise

Lead evaluation
5/5

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * -yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * -the sources range from when they were published but, the one thing I see that might be an issue is the information from the 2000 census, which could be updated to most recent one
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Content evaluation
4.5/5

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * -yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * -no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * -no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * -"Some individuals will leave feeling a sense of fulfillment, others may leave pride feeling disappointed." this sentence stuck out to me because of the language used. I'm not sure it fits as a factual entry.

Tone and balance evaluation
-4/5

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?
 * - yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * -there is a source from 2005 that might not be up to date but otherwise yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * -yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I was only able to find a few of the resources used. I don't doubt the existence of the ones I could not find, but if links were posted to the sources that would make it easier to check

Sources and references evaluation
3/5

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
3/3

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?
 * - yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * - the existing article touches on the discrimination and the content expands on that
 * - the content expands on the experience of black gay pride
 * - the content expands on the divide between white and black gay pride and talks about the importance of black gay pride to the lgbtq+ community
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * - add links to sources

Overall evaluation
9/10