User:Lessly.cortes/LGBT community/Sherly-ann-Ville-gas Peer Review

General info

 * Lessly Cortés
 * User:Lessly.cortes/LGBT community

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?
 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
''The lead section of the article was overly detailed, and so the student worked in it on their sandbox and improved it. Right now, the lead is very good. If my peer decides to add more information or sections to the article, I think they should add sentences that summarize that new content; otherwise, it's fine as it is.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation
There are many more topics or content that could be covered in the article, and although I know that the student has already added some very relevant ones, I will suggest a list of a few that occurred to me while reading:

1- Media section: Add information about the representation of LGBTQ+ characters in cartoons, the controversies it has caused and the benefits that has brought to the community.

2- Urban spaces in America: If found, add more events.

3- Criticism of the term: Add more information on whether something is being done about it in these cases of discrimination within the community itself.

4- Add a new section about pride month and its parades.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
''Overall, the tone of the article is neutral, which is very difficult to accomplish when it comes to topics like this where we have strong opinions about it. There is one part on my peer's sandbox that I would like to highlight. On the Same-Sex Parenting section, the sentence "Same-sex parents are just as capable as heterosexual parents of raising a child in a healthy and supportive environment", could be interpreted as giving an opinion, and therefore, violating wikipedia's definition of neutrality. I would recommend them to unify it with the sentence that follows it since the message they both carry is similar, and the second is backed by a citation.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
''On the article, there are multiple parts that are in need of citations, but my peer has already worked on many of them on their sandbox. All links work perfectly except for the 14 and 23. When I clicked them, both pages where blank, as if the information had been removed. On another note, there seems to be a diverse spectrum of authors including people from the community. However, there seems to be lacking sources from LGBTQ+ people of color (POC). I say this based on the authors of the mostly citated article (number 46) on the "Intersection of the race" section. Searching for sources written by people from this marginalized group would help to understand the situation from their perspectives. Finally, I would like to emphasize that the study on which the section "Discrimination and mental health" is based of, is not recent, it is from 2001. My recommendation is to search for a newer study about the possible causes of mental disorders in LGBTQ+ people not only as a whole, but as individuals (each "main" sexuality and trans persons). This would help to compliment the information and making sure is updated.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
''The article needs a lot of work in this regard. It contains information that would fit better in other sections, the paragraphs are somewhat long and tiring to read. A possible solution would be to transfer this information to other visual media, such as tables or timelines. In the case of information that would fit better elsewhere, there are parts that talk about LGBTQ + people who are also POC; however, at the end of the article there is a section dedicated to them (Intersections of race). I suggest to move some of these sentences, if they are not relevant where they are located, to this section.''

''On the subject of grammatical errors, in the last paragraph of the Marketing section, one sentence finishes with: "his or her own self-concept". My recommendation would be to change "his or her" for "their". Since it covers all genders, it is inclusive and much easier to write. It is significantely important when wiriting about the LGBTQ+ community.''

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?

Images and media evaluation
''Many more images are needed. Currently it only has three photos that are positioned in a not so appealing way, and somewhat far from the information. Whilst, in the sandbox, they have been reorganized cleverly. Also, the student has added more relevant images in a good way. I would only propose adding pictures about the political events mentioned under "Urban spaces in America". Also, if they choose to follow my suggestion on sections they could add, put some in them.''

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 was surprised at how long this article is, that makes it so much more difficult to work with. The ways in which it can be improved are diverse, there is not only one aspect that needs more helps than the others. Nontheless, the student is doing an excellent job and I can tell they have put a lot of effort in it.''