User:Nr2023/Lili Elbe/CyanCaribou Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nr2023


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nr2023/Lili Elbe


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Preliminary Peer Review from CyanCaribou (2023-03-05)

- I like that you use lots of reliable sources from various dates, including more recent ones.

- I know you're probably not finished yet, but I think having sub-sections would be a good idea for example "personal life", "career" etc. and a clear lead section that summarizes the key points about Lili Elbe.

- Your tone is neutral and non-biased, which is super good but maybe expand on some of the contradictory views to evenly show both sides of the narrative.

- I like all the hyperlinks to other articles (helpful for readers looking for more information)

(2023-03-27)

- Great improvements on your article, I would suggest merging your bibliographies as it is a little confusing.

- subtitles would be useful in breaking your sections down a little more.

Peer Review Checklist

Your goal with a peer review is to identify specific ways the article could be improved, and note any major problems that ought to be fixed. Consider these questions:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * relevant information, lack of subtitles and bibilography split up is confusing looks like 2 people were working quite separately.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * not that I see
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * would be interesting to further explore the opinions at the time that sex reassignment surgery be controversial, maybe a section on the technology at the time, and the publics opinion. it seems to be written like the surgery was non-controversial if a reader were to skim over it.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * looks good to me, I like the hyperlinks they're helpful
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * more emphasis needed on the different viewpoints of the sex reassignment surgery at the time
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * variety of sources were used, but bibliography needs some work