User:Mcox19/Non-penetrative sex/Ig510 Peer Review

General info

 * In this Peer Review I am going to be looking at the article chosen by @Mcox19
 * I will be reviewing User:Mcox19/sandbox and Non-penetrative sex

Lead

 * As of now they have not updated the lead however they do plan on making some adjustments in order to include the new sections they are adding.
 * The article clearly state that the topic is going to be "Outercourse" i.e. non penetrative sex
 * There is a table of contents but the lead mostly just gives basic background about no penetrative sex.
 * The lead presents basic information and then the article goes more in depth about the topic later in the article.
 * The Lead is concise and gives just enough information to get people interested in reading more about it.

Content

 * The content that will be added is relevant as it presents how other animals other than humans also interact with non-penetrative sex.
 * The research that is presented seems to be up-to-date and not to out dated as it has been presented within the last 20 years
 * The article seems to present a lot of aspects of non-penetrative sex and by adding the implications of animals I think it will have a good amount of information and I don't think anything is really missing unless the author would want to add more examples or more history of non-penetrative sex.
 * This topic has to do with many groups when it comes to sexual relations, including heterosexual relations, and same sex relations.

Tone and Balance

 * The proposed content is neutral and informative on how this topic effect animals as well as humans.
 * There dosen't seem to be a bias. It is an informative article.
 * There seems to be a very evenly dispersed representation throughout all the subsections, in a very well put manner.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content adde is just examples of animals who participate in non-penetrative sex so there is no persuasion.

Sources and References

 * The new content is supported by other sources that are added as a foot note to the end on the comment.
 * The sources are available for further research and fact checking.
 * The sources are within the last 20 years
 * the sources come from a variety of authors through many different identities.
 * All the links are functioning

Organization

 * The edits are well written very clear on what they are presenting and easy to read.
 * The edits seem to be grammatically sound and no spelling errors.
 * The content is well organized in spaced into sections based on the specific animal the section is talking about.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The edits have not been added but when they do they fill definitely add to the article and make it connectable to more than just human sex.
 * The strength of the edits is that it is directly about the topic an is just examples of this action in something other than humans.
 * One way the content could be better is adding visuals.