User:Obeyjassi/Slut-shaming/Aniidorii Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Obeyjassi


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Obeyjassi/Slut-shaming?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead

 * There is no lead or edits to the lead.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * For the most part yes. The added content about history goes into social class which fits well. You also added to female intrasexual competition. But I think you can take out the sentence where you define it.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article you added is pretty recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think everything fits in well. But you might want to make a new section under history for when you talk about social class because that is a more niche area. I think you can remove the sentence where you define female intrasexual competition and go straight to the sentence about why slut-shaming is a form of it.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article is slut-shaming which is a part of Wikipedia's equity gaps. You also go into detail about female intrasexual competition which appears to be a topic that needs more development on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, you state everything straightforwardly.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, it does a good job of introducing new points but does not over focus on it
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, easy simple language.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Again, I think you might want to consider what I said earlier in the Content section.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes. You added a new perspective with social class and you explained how slut-shaming and female intrasexual competition relate.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is neutral and does not favor one side. It also does not try to persuade the reader of anything. It just presents information in an objective way.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The definition of female intrasexual competition can be taken out. A new subsection about social class under history might be added for clearer organization.