User:Raizaj24/Gender diversity/Lessly.cortes Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Raizaj24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Raizaj24/Gender diversity

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


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


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


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article was missing information and it was not clear, but in my peer's sandbox she edited the lead by adding information and deleting extra information that was not necessary. Since she edited the lead with a brief description of the topic it is more easy to understand. I do recommend that the extra information that was deleted of the lead can be added to a new section or a sub-heading.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * Is the content added up-to-date?


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


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

Content evaluation
The content of the original article is about the Gender Diversity in the workplace. I recommend to add a "Terminology" section explaining what is Gender Diversity and about its population. Up to now the content added is up-to-date and it is relevant for improving the topic. There are a few incomplete parts, but I think the student is working on it. However, I suggest to make a sub-heading in the "Terminology" section for the "Intersex", " Gender nonconformity/ Variance", "Gender fluidity", and "Genderqueer" topics.There is an equity gap in this article about Gender diversity. The information in this article addresses the topic with historical information, and it is understandable.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?


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


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article original content was not neutral, in fact it only talked about how Gender diversity affect the people in their workspace. However, my peer has made correction in her sandbox so this article can be neutral and informative. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. The information is added to inform the reader of the concepts or meanings of the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?


 * Are the sources current?


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Since the editor is still working on her article not all of the information added is backed up with secondary reliable sources. I checked the sources and they reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources that are in the sandbox are a few years old and they have a lot of information that can help the improvement of the article. I clicked on a few links, and two of them worked but one of them is not available and is not reliable because the peer used the Yahoo.com page to define what Gender diversity was.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
In therms or organization, the original article is very messy with all the information that it has. On the other hand, up to now, the content added is clear and easy to read because the editor is still working on it in the sandbox and it is looking a little bit organize. I think that it needs more sub-headings than sub-sections so it can be more organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * Are images well-captioned?


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
It does not include images that enhance the understanding of the topic. It needs more images to improve the article to make it more visual. I recommend to put an image after each sub-section so it can catch the readers eyes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?


 * What are the strengths of the content added?


 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This article draft is still in progress, but up to now the content added is very clear to improve the article's information. The information is concise, it has no grammatical errors and it is easy to read. I recommend to add more sub-headings than sub-sections, add images for visual purposes, and use reliable sources to back up the information. I will also recommend not to use Yahoo.mail to find a definition for your work because it is not reliable. Other than that, I think the student have done a good job.