User:Nahomy.ynfante87/Occupational sexism/Foxypolymath 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? User:Nahomy.ynfante87
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Occupational sexism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has not been updated yet by my peer. The current Lead for this article is descriptive while still being concise. It is only one sentence long in fact, and it defines occupational sexism clearly. However, the Lead does not reference social role theory, for example, which is a topic that is written about extensively on this page.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Content has not yet been added by my peer, but I will reference the information currently in this peer's sandbox for this and other relevant portions of the peer review. My peer is focusing on a paragraph regarding the Violence Against Women Act. It appears that citations are still being searched for, but overall I am not sure how this information is relevant to this Wikipedia article on occupational sexism. The content appears to focus on domestic and sexual assault of women as opposed to employment related discrimination based on a person's sex.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The Violence Against Women Act that my peer is working on in their sandbox has some issues in tone. There are adjectives and verbs utilized in this paragraph which provided a less than neutral stance. There does not seem to be any overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints in this content.

As for the rest of the Wikipedia page assigned to this peer, the content appears neutral and the viewpoints balanced.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content in my peer's sandbox is in need of reliable secondary source information. As for the Wikipedia article, the sources cited here range from the dates of 1987 to 2018. I feel this is rather current information being cited, but many of the sources cited are from newspapers. It would be nice to see more additional sources that are from journals, historical documents, or more scientific studies cited if they're available on this topic. Also, one citation listed did not have an external link and another one included a listed link that did not exist.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The Wikipedia article could use more copyediting, but overall it is rather concise and clear in providing a general overview of occupational sexism. This peer has not added anything aside from copyedit improvements which were beneficial. The content is well-organized and the many subheadings allowed for more easy reading of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
My peer has not added any images or media.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A. This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I feel this is a great start to an article and the copyedits that have been made have been by my peer have been beneficial. More clarity as to how the content in my peer's sandbox is relevant to occupational sexism is necessary though, since I do not feel the Violence Against Women Act is expressly relevant to the discussion on occupational sexism.