User:Lmfscots/Sexual repression/Annabelle Cohen 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? Lmfscots
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lmfscots/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I do not think so
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but there are a few extra examples that could be removed.

Lead evaluation
your lead is good, I don't have anything to add to it

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, it goes up to 2016
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no, there is plenty there and it all belongs
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, it deals with women and sexual minorities

Content evaluation
This is a really interesting topic and I can tell that you did a lot of in-depth research into the various sub-topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? your article showcases both sex positive and sex negative viewpoints
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it does not

Tone and balance evaluation
You did a good job of being impartial and not letting your own views take over

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Lots of amazing sources! The only thing is to check your in-text citations because I don't think you need specific page numbers and dois in the actual text. I also think you can use the same text multiple times without making a new entry in the references, so I would check that as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? there are a few extra examples in the lead, but I don't think that's necessarily a problem
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? there are a few very minor grammatical errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it is very well-organized

Organization evaluation
good!

Images and Media n/a
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?

For New Articles Only n/a
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? yes it definitely improves the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the strengths are that it expands the research presented without taking a view point
 * How can the content added be improved? just check the technical aspects, like your citations

Overall evaluation
this is really good! I think there is very little left for you to do to make this ready for publication.