User:Ktournillon/LGBT people in science/Bmdbt Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ankithj, Gabrielle16, Ktournillon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktournillon/LGBT_people_in_science?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * LGBT people in science

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: No changes have been made to the lead. It is very concise and clearly defines who the article is about but could be expanded to include each of the major sections.

Content: The article does address a topic that is historically underrepresented and addresses why historians think this might be. The content seems to be up to date. The content does a good job of highlighting prominent figures but it is hard to say what is missing because there is so much that could be included.

Tone and Balance: This article is neutral and states facts relevant to the topic. It does not appear to be biased or trying to persuade anyone.

Sources and References: one thing I noticed while reading through was that there wasn’t a reference after the claim “ they were often believed to be celibate because it would not be safe for them to come out.” I think there definitely should be one after this!

The sources appear to be current and relevant. The links work. The sources are written by people from different backgrounds, including historically marginalized individuals. After reading parts of the sources, it seems like the information is accurately portrayed within the Wikipedia article. The sources used are good quality; however, it might be a good idea to find multiple sources for each topic to make sure it is accurate and provide more support.

Organization: This article is well-organized, lacks grammatical mistakes, and is well-written.

Images and Media: No images/media was added to the draft but there could be if you chose to. It might be interesting to see all the people that are addressed within this section.

'''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?'''

I think you did a great job with describing the debate about sexualities of past people. It expresses the difficulty but not in a way that could be confusing for those that are not well informed of this topic.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

My main recommendation is what I mentioned earlier with the source after the claim of whether it was safe for them. It is definitely relevant and important but without a source to back you up, it can just look like a random claim.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think you’ve done a good job thus far so I don’t know that I have any major things for you to improve other than including a greater diversity in the figures spoken about in this section. All the people talked about did great things but they’re all white men (as far as I can tell).

'''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

Janet’s sexuality has been up for debate (though it is pretty clear what it was even if people try to deny it) so seeing how it was written about in this article will definitely be helpful for mine!



Ktournillon Response
Hi, Bmdbt. Thank you for your detailed review! I do really want to expand the lead, but I'm not sure where to start. I hope to explore that in the coming weeks. The article overall is relatively bare bones right now, so I hope to build up just about every section so it has more detail overall, especially including LGBT people in science that are more diverse. I will do more research into the topic to find multiple sources, especially for some of the bigger claims; thank you for pointing out the missing reference regarding celibacy! I will look at my notes to fix this. Glad the information about Janet is helpful to you! Thank you again.