User:Madelynmeidling/Sociology of gender/Jensyn23 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? Madelynmeidling and Lynet22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Madelynmeidling/Sociology of gender

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead doesn't include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sentences.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead doesn't include information not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is neither concise or overly detailed.

==== Lead evaluation: Overall I didn't find a distinct lead within the article. As a whole there is a lot of potential and the information is relevant but there should be a lead added in because it would make the article feel less rushed with information. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is very relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I cannot tell if the content is up to date due to a lack of citations. But, with the dates present within the article they are up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that doesn't belong.

==== Content evaluation: Overall the content as a whole is very factual and adds an analytic approach to the article due to the expressed knowledge and in depth detail within the article. The only thing that needs tweaking is making sure the citations are available to check the date and make sure the content is current. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is very neutral and is factually backed up.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that are heavily biased towards one position at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overall I feel that there should be a more in depth concentration on men and their gender role within our society. The content seems to provide more examples and resources that shows how women were at more of a disadvantage.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? With the deeper presence of more content driven towards women and how they were apart of the society it almost bends it in a way that makes it seem that women were more affected than men by the sociology of gender.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: Overall the tone was very neutral but overall there needs to be a bigger or more in depth knowledge of men within our society instead of directing it more towards women and making it seem as if only a specific group is harmed or helped by this. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The citations have not been included in the sandbox yet therefore, cannot confirm if the sources are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are no citations posted yet.
 * Are the sources current? There is no way to tell. However, they do reference recent events in their article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no citations posted.

==== Sources and references evaluation: Overall, there was not a lot of evaluating to be done because the citations have not been posted. However, the events referenced in the article are current and easy to back up. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is organized a little bulky but everything relates to one another and makes a smooth transition.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few run-on sentences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article should be broken up a little more into separate paragraphs instead of bulking up them to make it more organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images.

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? The content added has made the article to become a more in depth perception of the sociology of gender, but there should be more info added regarding other viewpoints not just women.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They provided recent events to further explain the sociology of gender along with in depth factual detail to emphasize the sociology of gender.
 * How can the content added be improved? By organizing the article into separate paragraphs and backing up the evidence provided with citations. By adding more diverse viewpoints not based off of just being female.

==== Overall evaluation: Overall the article was well written, but there are a few changes that would really help this article become more interesting instead of just feeling like a brain dump of information clumped together. By spacing it out and making it easier to chew the information being presented. ====