User:Mackenziegan/Cross-dressing/Brianbuigwu Peer Review

General Info
User:Mackenziegan
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mackenziegan/Cross-dressing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cross-dressing

Peer Review
 Lead 


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Given that I do not see any lead in your sandbox at the moment, I am assuming that you are planning to keep the same lead that is presently in the published article. In that case, I believe you're fine in doing so, as your added subcategories delving into various instances of gender disguise are already nicely documented in the current lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The currently published lead provides a great summary of the topic by concisely summarizing what cross-dressing is and what cross-dressing hopes to achieve. Your group's added subcategories include very concise and clear introductory sentences.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead that can be seen on the published Wikipedia page already provides a clear summarization of the topics you are discussing, as well as the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Since the existing lead already touches upon the concept of gender disguising as an aspect of cross-dressing, and that your group's efforts are focused exclusively on enhancing the subtopic of gender disguise, this question does not apply. Nevertheless, your group's added subcategories incorporate various instances of gender disguising not presently covered in the article. It's a noteworthy enhancement that all of your headings begin with "Gender disguise in....," ensuring uniformity and offering a cohesive introduction.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The currently published lead is nicely concise.

 Content 


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is extremely relevant to the topic, and each subcategory is discussed in great detail.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The added content draws from up-to-date sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As your content is a work in progress, I cannot determine if there is any missing information. Currently, the content provided adequately covers gender disguising in various subcategories, and it appears to be a suitable addition to the article overall.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Given that cross-dressing / gender disguising is a historically stigmatized concept, I would agree that the article deals with an underrepresented topic.

 Tone and Balance 


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Your added content employs neutral vocabulary, which contributes to a balanced and objective presentation of the topic. Well done!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There do not appear to be any heavily biased claims in your group's content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All viewpoints are well developed, with no topic appearing disproportionately emphasized or marginalized.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added is neutral and does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

 Sources and References 


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Overall, there are sections that exhibit a rich array of sources, as evident in "Gender Disguise in Journalism," while other sections, particularly "Gender Disguise in War," could benefit from additional references to enhance its depth. It is great to see that the group member responsible for "Gender Disguise in Sports" has made some notes to add references for their work.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * All currently cited sources are accurately represented within the content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * All the selected sources are comprehensive and well-suited for the content, comprising a mix of news articles and scholarly journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All the presently chosen sources are current, having been published within the past five years. It is worth noting that there is an exception with regard to some sources discussing the book Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man but this is acceptable because they provide valuable context and insight into the topic of gender disguising.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources authored by identifiable individuals predominantly consist of works by white women, with the sole exception being the scholarly journal detailing the bacha posh tradition in Afghanistan, which was written by a woman from India. That being said, an author cannot be determined from some sources, notably the ABC News article discussing Norah Vincent's book and the NBC News article on Afghan girls which pulls information from the Associated Press.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Your group has done well in selecting news articles that offer valuable insights into the topics at hand. To further enhance the sources, I would recommend exploring Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed journal articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Source #4 : R, Keerthana; Selvarathinam, Dr Jayanthi (2023). "The Unjust Twisting: Bacha Posh Custom of the Invisible Girls in Afghanistan Through Nadia Hashimi's Work" - The link provided does not lead to the journal itself, as there is a message indicating that the paper has been removed from the site's database.
 * Source #5 : "Shibboleth Authentication Request". proxygw.wrlc.org. Retrieved 2023-10-01. - Clicking on this link directs you to the ProQuest database search bar for GW Libraries.
 * With the exception of the sources mentioned above, all other references feature functional links.

 Organization 


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The added content is very well-written, with each description offering ample and comprehensive information about its respective topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * (Under "Gender Disguise in Journalism"): "In some instances, women in journalism deem is it necessary to wear the identity of a man in order to gather information that is only accessible from the male point of view."
 * With the exception of the sentence above, the rest of the added content exhibits no grammar issues.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The added content showcases exceptional organization, meticulously categorizing examples by name or other pertinent criteria. Nonetheless, it could be further improved in the subcategory "Gender Disguise in War" by adjusting the font size of each example's header to match the formatting consistency seen in the other subcategories.

 Images and Media 


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Your group's content at the moment does not include any images. It is my personal suggestion that incorporating images alongside the various names mentioned within each subcategory could enhance the overall engagement and visual appeal of the content.

 Overall Impressions 


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added has improved the overall quality of the article by enhancing its completeness. The addition of well-organized information and diverse sources has contributed to a more comprehensive and engaging resource on the topic of gender disguise.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added content makes a substantial contribution to improving the overall Wikipedia page. It provides concrete and illustrative examples of gender disguise across various subcategories, enriching the reader's understanding. Furthermore, it emphasizes the profound significance of the topic, compelling readers to recognize its depth and importance, surpassing what the current Wikipedia page presently provides. Great job!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * To further enhance the content added, there are several steps that can be taken. Firstly, consider diversifying the sources even more by incorporating various types of references, such as books, interviews, or reports, to offer a broader perspective on the topic. Additionally, maintaining consistent formatting, particularly in terms of font size, across all subcategories, including "Gender Disguise in War," can improve visual coherence for readers. Building on the suggestion to include relevant images alongside the examples within each subcategory could enhance visual engagement and complement the textual content. It's essential to double-check all references and citations to ensure they accurately link to their respective sources, thus enhancing the overall credibility of the content. Furthermore, when scholarly articles are available, consider incorporating more of them, as they provide in-depth analysis and academic rigor to the topic. Lastly, providing brief historical context where applicable can give readers a deeper understanding of the evolution of gender disguise in various fields, enriching the content further.
 * Overall, your group has done a truly amazing job in improving the Wikipedia page!

- Brian Bui

Brianbuigwu (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)