User:Metroblum/Boyfriend loophole/Sylvierichards Peer Review

Peer Review Wikipedia Exercise

Your Name: Sylvie Richards

Wiki Username: Metroblum

I. Which article are you evaluating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyfriend_loophole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metroblum

II. Evaluate the article

Evaluate the article using the following rubric. Note, you do not need to leave comments for each question. Use the comments boxes to elaborate on notable successes or highlight key shortcomings of the article.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media
III. Overall impressions

The article’s status is very good and it is well-developed. The lead is overall informative, concise, and clear. It is only missing brief descriptions of three sections. The article body should also discuss the disproportionate effect of DV on WOC and the existence of DV in non-heterosexual relationships as mentioned in the lead, and in filling a further equity gap. The article’s content is strong, relevant, up-to-date, and informative. The topic is underrepresented in greater discussions on gun control, filling an equity gap. The language and claims were neutral and included multiple perspectives. It also has a large number and great diversity of modern sources. There are few news articles and instead, many studies and peer-reviewed articles. The article only needs to fill in citations where two are missing and insert links where citations don’t have them. The main improvement needed is minimizing unclear and run-on sentences, and fixing some small grammatical errors. Removing passive voice and fixing the structure of confusing sentences would help. Clarifying the topic/name of the final, and what seems to be the primary section would strengthen the article; It seems to focus on current legislation rather than the concept of surrendering firearms.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Include your summaries here and on the author’s talk page.

To find an author’s/user's Talk page, go to their Wikipedia User page — something like " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DZOBrien ". You'll see the Talk link at the top left of the page. Click "New Section" on the Talk page and enter your message. Remember to sign with four tildes! (Sylvierichards (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC))