User:Lessly.cortes/LGBT community/Fabiola Zayas 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?

Lessly.cortes


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Lessly.cortes/LGBT community

Lead
Guiding questions:

The lead was improved, and it covers most of what the article talks about. The introductory sentence on the lead is concise and explains what the article is about. The lead is more general about the community, but it does talk about the legal aspect. It was overly detailed, but now it is more straightforward and easy to read.
 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Content
Guiding questions:

The content added is relevant when we are talking about the legal presence, and fight the community has done, and their fight for all of these rights. This article addresses a community that historically have been underrepresented that need to fight for equality, and that is a taboo for multiple people.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * 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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The content seems neutral. There aren't any claims that are heavily biased. The content added doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, is written with the purpose of inform, and not to convince.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

All the links I check worked except for number fifteen.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?



Organization
Guiding questions:

The article is clear, but it can be a little hard to read in some parts (ex: intersection of race, health, terminology...)
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Some parts (ex: symbols section) haves grammatical errors that need to be fixed. This article is pretty long, and some sections can be broken into shorter ones to keep the reader engaged.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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

'''It does! The images not only add information but compliment the topic nicely. I feel that this topic requires pictures to emphasize the subject.''' Yes, they all explained what is happening or what the picture is about.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

The images manage to be laid in a visually appealing way, and all are close to the information they compliment, but maybe the flags can be re-arranged.
 * 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:

The content added improves and complements the legal fight of the community for human rights. I feel that this is a complicated topic to talk about because you need to be really careful with what you write, and this student editor has done a fantastic job so far finding a balance between fixing the current information, and adding new one while keeping the article neutral, clear, and engaging. '''Like I said before, the article has some sections that are too long, and even though it is engaging, it can be a little bit hard to read at first. That could be fixed by separating the information into new sections or deleting redundant information. I feel that if it is feasible and they existed some graphics on the "Buying power" section to represent the numeric data visually because it will help comprehend better, and some pictures on the "media" section would be nice.'''
 * 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?