User:Pumpkiinss03/Sexual script theory/Jaybreeze123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Valeria Sandoval - Pumpkiinss03


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pumpkiinss03/Sexual script theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sexual script theory
 * Sexual script theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'''s everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

It appears that everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. I can see how the writer is aiming to expand on areas that the original article does not cover, such as mediated sexual scripts and criticisms associated with sexual scripts theory. There are various areas throughout the article where the grammar is incorrect or words are missing to form a complete sentence. This was distracting and takes away from the information being shared.

I'''s the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

I would say that this article is mostly neutral, but there are a few claims that are seemingly based in cited sources, but come across as opiniated since they present the statement as a fact, rather than a particular stance on the subject (with potential for a differing stance to exist).

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I feel this article does a good job expressing information regarding the stated topics without pushing in one specific direction. At the same time, some of the information seems a bit too specific for encompassing a general overview of the topics being discussed. I feel the article would be improved by providing more general concepts and conclusions about the topics, rather than such specific examples given the parameters of the project and Wikipedia.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

It appears that a few of her references are cited as different sources in the article, but they are actually a source that has already been cited.

'''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?'''

The references that are made are from reputable sources have been peer reviewed. Some of the sources are dissertations and theses and it doesn't appear that this distinction in the type of reference is noted within the article.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

The information is all current, nothing cited is before the 2000s. I feel the writer did a good job expanding on the topic and providing information that was not already mentioned in the article.

I would encourage the writer to do a thorough review of the copy as to improve its readability and cohesiveness. The content is solid, it just needs to be cleaned up. I am also curious as to how the writer plans to organize the information they are adding to the existing article.

Peer Review Response from Pumpkiinss03:
Thank you for your review Jaybreeze123. I have taken some of your suggestions and applied to my article. I fixed the citations issue I had earlier and they seem better now. I reviewed it and realized why you thought it needed revising and with the grammar. Thank you again for your constructive criticism!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jaybreeze123


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jaybreeze123/Pluralistic ignorance


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'''s everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Yes, everything was relevant to the article topic. Nothing is too distracting except for the unfinished bolded phrases.

I'''s the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

Yes, the article is neutral. It does not seem to have any claims or frames that are heavily biased towards any specific position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are a couple bolded phrases that seem incomplete. I would take them off if they are unnecessary but they seem relevant to the article.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

The citations and links work, they also support the claims in the article.

'''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?'''

The information comes from scholarly sources and it does not seem biased. The facts seem supported by appropriate and reliable sources.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

No information seems out of date or missing at this time.