User:Pppp42/Gender variance/Formless Entity Peer Review

General info
Pppp42
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Pppp42/Gender variance
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gender variance

Lead Section
Straight to the point and easy to understand. I don't know if the final sentence of the lead section regarding transphobic discrimination fits in the lead as there is no mention of it anywhere in the article.

Structure
Article structure seems pretty intuitive. It goes from the main idea, to terminology, theory, and generally other aspects that have a very clear relation to Gender Variance.

Coverage Balance
Coverage seems balanced for the most part. No section is too long. The clothing section could be expanded upon, it does play a notable part in gender expression, but I wouldn't say it's necessary.

Content Neutrality
The content seems neutral, but maybe that's because I am biased. The article mostly explains the idea of gender variance and multiple aspects, rather than saying whether it's good or bad, so it feels neutral. In the childhood section, it could go over why the accuracy of the studies mentioned were disputed to add a bit more balance to perspectives.

Source reliability
Sources seem pretty solid. The majority seem to be from peer reviewed journals published in the past 10 years or less. This means they're reliable, trusted, and recent sources. There's only three claims in total that need citation, and I see you've already patched up at least one of them, so that's good.

Final Thoughts:
Overall the article is pretty solid. As someone who is not entirely familiar with the conversations and rhetoric regarding Gender Variance, I wouldn't know if something is really missing regarding theory or perspectives. What's already there feels like a strong foundation, and your changes are just adding to that already strong foundation, leading to an ever-so-slightly stronger article. All I have left to say is good job and good luck!