User:PTX3026/Sonke Gender Justice/Raider2022 Peer Review

General info
User: PTX3026
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:PTX3026/Sonke Gender Justice - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD:

Does the article include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic? For the first paragraph the sources are good. Add more context behind who created it when it started to take part in creating change. Just some details on what your topic is.

'Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? ￼'

There wasn't any highlighting on areas of importance in the lead paragraph. The article is still being developed so it's understandable that it's not there yet. So, in your revised version just briefly mention your subtopics that you want to expand on more as key parts to the meaning of your topic. Not every section has to be highlighted just the main, main ones.

'Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? ￼'

The lead does not include information that isn't present in the article. If anything, what's in the article should be run over in the lead. ￼

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think in the lead is more concise. You stated the organization and what are their motives. I think what's also missing is what the organization does in order to aid their cause. I don't know what act the organization is taking to improve their cause based off the Lead. For an example, you wrote "Some issues that they combat include gender-based violence, advocating for women's rights, and the effects of HIV/AIDS" then come in with saying, "the way that Sonke Gender Justice goes about changing these issues in communities is by ______."

CONTEXT:

Is the context added relevant to the topic?

I believe that most of the context is relevant to the topic at hand but isn't expanded enough for the reader to understand how it applies. Most the subtopics are underdeveloped but that'll come with time but expanding is needed for the reader to understand.

Is the context added up-to-date?

Dates aren't mentioned much in this article so I definitely think that more dates should be added to start to bridge the topics to each other and move forward and away from 2006 which was that start of this organization and more into the organizations current endeavor's. ￼

Is there context that is missing or context that does not belong?

Your body paragraph needs some more elaborating on your subtopics. I wasn't to sure about "South Africa" information. As a reader I don't know what Gender Based-ve is and because I don't know then the context of everything else your saying gets lost. So, including a text definition of it as a reference would help your readers.

'Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? ￼'

Given that we were assigned articles that are meant to tackle that exact problem, yes, this article does address more underrepresented populations and topics. ￼

TONE AND BALANCE:

Is the content added neutral?

The content is pretty neutral from what I see. The only thing I was concerned about was this line, "which is due to most of the blame being out on, them consisting of HIV incidents" if this statement is true then some sort of evidence should be linked but using words like most brings into question the viability of a source at least for me it does. Because if someone says most then I question who is making such statements. Using things like statics will be your friend for situations like this so it doesn't seem biased.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Not much to any. ￼

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

Not that I've noticed. ￼

Does the content added to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No this content is mainly stating what the organization is about and what they stand for. There isn't much detail leaning to one side.

SOURCES AND REFRENCES:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source information?

There isn't any new content added so I couldn't say if any new sources would be reliable information. ￼

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

The content does apply and reflect what the cited sources say. Alot of the sources have similarities so one source can be used for most of the information through the text and then little bits and pieces that can't be backed up by that article is being included.

Are the sources current?

Most of sources are more on the current side. It's withing the 2000s range and I think that makes the most since.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?

Yes, they are. ￼

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

I think the way you are picking your sources are well. You have a mix from regular sources to sources in archives.

Do the links work?

Yes, the links work.

ORGANIZATION:

Looks organized, maybe space out the subcategories a little bit more. The content can use elaboration and fixing very small spelling errors.

IMAGES AND MEDIA:

There aren't any images yet, but I think you'll start to incorporate them more later on since the image's thing was introduced after the draft.