User:Maria0330/XXXXY syndrome/Londonisawesome Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Maria0330


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Maria0330/XXXXY syndrome


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * XXXXY syndrome

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.)

Lead: The lead has been extended to incorporate the new content added to the article while keeping key components incorporated. The introductory sentence clearly and concisely describes the article topic. The lead however does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does include information that is not present within the article and it is brief and concise.

Content: The content added is relevant to the topic and expands on the topics that were previously there. The content added is up to date and currently relevant. All of the content added is purposeful and beneficial to the article. It does not deal with wikipedia's equity gap, however some of the text refers to people of different genders which could cause further issue.

Tone and Balance: The content added is particularly neutral and does not lean towards any direction. There are no overrepresented or underrepresented facts this far, and the content does not persuade the reader in one way or another as the information is purely factual.

Sources: It appears that all the content added is supported by reliable sources of information however the peer reviewed articles are not listed in their designated place on the page. The sources reflect the information on the article and they are current. There is a vast array of authors. The links work. I wouldn't say there are better sources to use instead of the ones previously incorporated, however there is a lot of content about this subject on the internet. so i believe there is plenty more to contribute during the next edit.

Organization: The content added is clear and easy to read. I did not observe any grammatical or spelling errors. It is also better organized than the initial wikipedia article.

Images: There was one image added that was relevant to the article and the description was clear and concise.

Overall the edit to this wikipedia page was well done. The information was not biased by any means and the sources were reputable.