User:Maisystarr/Mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic/WikiEditor1121 Peer Review

Peer Review
NOTE FROM COURSE INSTRUCTOR: I think this is a great review. And I would agree with the overall assessment as well as the note about possibly needing some other sources for the section. One reliable source is a good start, but given how much content you are including, it would be better to have two or three others for balance and amplification of the overall message/research.

Quite a lot available here in the Google Scholar searches around this topic: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=COVID+LGBTQ+youth&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Also agree it would be good to introduce some note in the lede of the article.

Lead
The Lead has not yet been updated to reflect the changes that will be made to the article. The Lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the topic of the article as well as it includes a brief description of the sections of the article. My suggestion is to go back and add in LGBTQ into that section just so that it can continue to introduce all of the major sections in the article. Overall the Lead that is already there is concise and it doesn't include information that is later expanded upon in the rest of the article.

Content
The content being added is very relevant to the topic especially because the article already breaks down some of the people affected by mental health, so adding in a section about how members of the LGBTQ community were affected fits right in. The content being added is pretty much up to date as the data comes from a source published in 2021. All of the content that was newly written for the project seems to have the appropriate information, but I think it could also be written in a way where the information can flow a little bit better. It has a lot of great statistics, but it just needs a little bit of flow to piece it all together in a smoother way. This article and the section being added does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it is addressing a new community of people that wasn't originally in the article.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral as it is statistics, so there is proof behind them. I don't think that the information that was written for this new LGBTQ section was heavily biased as it is just reporting on some of the surveyed perceptions of the public and their struggles with mental health. The content added is very inclusive of all the facts and although it helps you better understand the mental effects that COVID-19 had on this community, I dont feel like it attempts to persuade you to take a certain stance on the topic, but instead it just is relaying facts.

Sources and References
The content is covered by one reliable source. With that being said I'm unsure of how many sources we need to add to this project, so I would maybe also try finding another just to have more than one source of information. The content does reflect what the article states and the sources are very thorough as it reflects a survey that was conducted nationally. As mentioned before the sources are relevant and up to date as this survey was conduced in 2021 which was in the prime of COVID-19. This source was only written by one person, but the website that it is on does have extensive research also done on this topic that was done previous to this survey. I think that this source is a really good one and I dont think that there is necessarily a better source, but there might also be one that can further back up this information.

Organization
The section being added to the article is very concise, but as mentioned before it just needs a little bit of flow to bring all of the data together. There aren't any grammatical errors as far as I could see and the content being added will be a section on its own. This section is "split" into two paragraphs that is appropriate for the two relating topics.

Images and Media
This editor did not add any images or media, so none of the questions in this section apply to the editor.

Overall Impression
I think that the content being added does deffinantly improve the article as it provides information on this topic where there was a gap in the original article. Adding in information about this communities struggles during that time is very valuable information and it is clear that the information written is well supported as it is based off of a nation wide survey. Overall this editor did a great job with the information they provided and I feel like it gives even more insight into a community that wasn't already covered in the article!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)