User:Likethefig/Vibrator (sex toy)/Dellrums Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Likethefig


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Likethefig/Vibrator (sex toy)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vibrator (sex toy)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead : This user has not added anything to the lead yet.

Content : The addition of vibrator use within LGBTQ+ and disabled communities provides much needed content for historically marginalized communities. For the created LGBTQ+ section, the user has added, "Vibrating sex toys are used by members of the LGBTQ+ community in sexual relationships to heighten pleasure and promote inclusivity." This is a good start, but is vague and does not strengthen the overall quality of the article. They could definitely include information about how the use of vibrators is important within that community, and possible stigmatizations/limitations that follow. They could also include studies that have explored how and why LGBTQ+ members choose to use vibrators as opposed to other methods of sexual pleasure. The inclusion of STI risk was not included before and is relevant to the topic, however the user does not have a reliable source to verify the included information. (I could not access the reference for this.) They added, "Sexually transmitted infections can remain on vibrators after use, including HPV. " and used a reference from a study done on vibrators that were inserted vaginally, which might be important to include. (There is much content that is missing, but the user stated in their sandbox that they have more brainstorming/research to do before adding to the physical article.)

Tone : The content that has been added is neutral and unbiased. From what I have read, the content added does not attempt to sway the reader from one position to another. They have included viewpoints from underrepresented groups that are beneficial to the article and might bring up the importance rating of the article. (It is currently rated as a 'low-importance' article.)

Sources/References : The user's sandbox includes two references, one of which I cannot access because it is either cited incorrectly/broken link, or are blocked by the publisher. (Here is a reliable reference I found that could help expand the disability section of this article.) (Here is a source I found that cross-references feminist and queer perspectives) (Here is a cross-sectional survey report I found that may help with the expansion of the user's STI Risk module) Some have reported that the use of vibrators, especially within the LGBTQ+ community, actually lowers the risk of STIs; I would be interested to read what the user finds about this information and how that could re-frame the initial perspective they intended on writing about.

Organization : The content that the user has added to the article is articulate and does not have any spelling/grammar issues. Their draft is well-organized in that it fits the flow of the article (by being broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the article.)

Overall impressions : The biggest shortcomings of this user's additions are the lack of content and the reliability of the few sources they have selected. It is important to keep in mind that this user is not done with their additions to the article and the pertinent research needed to complete certain sections. That being said, they do have a lot of work to do but their inclusive ideas will be a great addition to this C-class article. Keep up the good work!