User:Kocurran1123/Pre-ejaculate/KidAd 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? (Kocurran1123)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kocurran1123/Pre-ejaculate

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lede has not yet been updated, but significant changes to the body paragraphs have been proposed. When these changes are implemented, the lede will be updated to relflect them. I agree with Kaylynn's assessment that the lede is underdeveloped.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lede describes a cursory overview of the article's topic. Currently, the lede provides more of a basic definition than summary of the body.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lede does not mention "Function and risks" or "Overproduction" covered in following sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lede is concise and open for expansion.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content appears up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, content satisfied WP:NPOV.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, proposed content is neutral and uncontentious.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. Content is WP:IMPARTIAL.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, I can see that all proposed changes are supported by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, though I'm not fully aware of the limits of pre-ejaculate-related academic literature available.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, I noticed one from 2020. Good find.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The Nguyen, Nelson, and Patel source seems to provide a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links are working. To avoid the red "check date values" notice, double click on citations when using visual editor (should look like this: [1]) and manually insert the date from the sources in the appropriate line.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the proposed material is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! The material is very well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images added yet. There is already a picture of a penis on the page. Maybe find an illustration?
 * 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. (N/A – not a new article)'''


 * 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, the proposed content fills in some glaring gaps in the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The material is well-written and neutral.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Fix the citation errors and possibly find an additional image. Other than that, you're in good shape.

Overall evaluation
Kaylynn – you've made some very substantive and productive edits here. You've selected some good sources and will just need to tidy up the citation errors. Good job!