User:Plantbella/Declaration of Sexual Rights/MoltenuniverseSL Peer Review

General info
Plantbella
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Declaration of Sexual Rights

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : Yes. The lead has been edited to include further information on the topic, and has provided more context.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead addresses the core aspects of the article, that being the various versions of the Declaration and their changes over time since it was first introduced.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No; the lead covers everything that is in the article and is expanded upon.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and summarizes the evolution of the Declaration in very few words.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes; the content included is detailed, and some content even goes beyond the topic to emphasize its notoriety/relevance (specifically the International Planned Parenthood Federation).
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. The content reflects every version of the Declaration up to the most recent one that is featured on the official website, which is from 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? At least from appearance, it does not seem like there is any missing content. I am curious if there is more information about reception, but it is possible that it is hard to find. Otherwise, its great! given the topic, it appears it is hard to flesh it out in the same way other topics do, given that it is a strict set of words that has been updated over time.
 * 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 a high importance, yet stub class article, and has ties to specific WikiProjects. It is seeking to fill gaps in topics that are important to topics that have little attention.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? The content featured in the article is very neutral and understandable.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content included is backed up by as recent as they could get, given that the Declaration seems to not have been touched in almost ten years. What is available appears to be very good sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes. The article represents what many of the sources say within the contents that is well written.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The some of the sources come from what seems like the official website for the declaration, which definitely reflects what is most accurate and recent about the topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current, at least as much as they could get given what appears to be available, which is good. This highlights also that academics should focus on the Declaration.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible ? As indicated in the article, the origins of the Declaration come from a marginalized perspective, and that is seen in the sources.
 * 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.) As far as I can tell, it does not appear that there are. It seems like a topic that is not well covered, and these sources are very good in getting the proper information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes; all of the links work that have them featured.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not as far as I can tell.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic ? Sort of -- the article features a photo related to the associated section, but because of the topic's little recognition, that is probably part of why. Also, getting access to photos on wikipedia for a topic such as this may be difficult.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes. the sole image featured on the page is captioned well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Absolutely. The original prior to the additions made for this class was quite barren and did not include background information in what had been referenced in the lead of the article at the time. What has been added has significantly bolstered the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Everything that was added about the Declaration was relevant, important in understanding it, and well put together.
 * How can the content added be improved? I am not entirely sure what to suggest, other than maybe see if there are any news articles that are relevant to the topic that may highlight responses to it, which may build on the responses section.