User:Samthebossbabe/Comprehensive sex education/Elrupp Peer Review

General info
Samthebossbabe
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Samthebossbabe/Comprehensive sex education
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Comprehensive sex education

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead has not been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the current article's first sentence defines the central concept of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? While it does summarize most of the sections, it doesn't particularly touch on the history of CSE nor sexual content in media.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is more concise than overly detailed. It does a good job summarizing the aims of CSE as opposed to the content.  I think this is the right move, as the content is more varied than the goal of the programming.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There does not appear to be any content that was added to the original article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? . The article is currently fairly long, so I am wondering if there are some sections that could be condensed. Specifically, the Healthy Youth Act of California and the Healthy Youth Act of Massachusetts could be mentioned in a shorter section that generally describes state initiatives.
 * Also, the "Federal Funding for Sexual Education" seems a bit off topic in several places. For instance, while it is interesting to read about AEGP, it seems time would be better spent discussing current and proposed CSE funding streams, with funding towards oppositional programs as more of a footnote than an entire section.  I also do not quite understand why the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act is even mentioned in this section?  It may be relevant, but there is nothing in the section itself that ties it with federal funding.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.  In particular, it focuses on the benefits of CSE for LGBTQ+ youth, in addition BIPOC youth and students with disabilities.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? There does not appear to be any added content.  However, there are a few places where tone feels more like an essay than a neutral description
 * Also, very small thing, but I would consider renaming the benefits/criticisms sections. For example, "benefits" feels more to be insinuating that these are objective positives, while "criticisms" gives the connotation of opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes.  In the "Benefits" section, the second sentence is stated as fact rather than a theory or position.  In that same sentence, I would consider changing the term "premarital sex" to something like "sex outside of marriage" or "unmarried sex," as it could seem to be characterizing marriage as an inevitability or goal.
 * I would also do some reworking in the "Inclusion of the LGBT community" section. For example, the first sentence of the third paragraph does not clarify who's "holistic picture of human sexuality" it is referring to.  There is also no example given for programs that mislead through use of the term "comprehensive."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? . The article seems primarily focused on a U.S. context, given the heavy focus on state initiatives and an entire section granted to U.S. federal funding. I am not saying it shouldn't focus on the U.S., but rather it should be clear when the article is specifically talking about the U.S. (for example, "Federal Funding" should be "Federal Funding in the United States").
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content appears to be added.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There does not appear to be added content.  However, there are a few places without citations.  For example, none of the MA HYA controversy section has citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) . After clicking on a few of the sources, the article seems to accurately reflect what the sources are saying.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? . The sources seem to be fairly reflective of the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? . While there doesn't appear to be any content added, not all sources in the actual article are current. For example, the MA Healthy Youth Act needs an updated citation as well as information, as the bill has been reintroduced and just had a hearing this month.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? . While some sources appear to be from an LGBTQ+ perspective, most seem to be written by white, Western researchers.
 * 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.) . Yes. For example, there is more up-to-date information on the MA HYA on their website, on the MA congressional website, and in news articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? . Yes.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There are a few spots where the language could be more concise and straight-forward. For example, in the third paragraph of "Teaching methods," saying sexuality education is "set apart" and "a stand-alone subject" feels redundant and convoluted.
 * There are also some spots where passive voice is used. For example, in "As a Human Right," the beginning of the second paragraph could be, "The International Community has reaffirmed state commitments . . ."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? . There does not appear to be added content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? While there appears to be no added content, the current organization of the article does not seem the most intuitive to me.  First, I am not sure the Healthy Youth Acts for California and Massachusetts need their own sections.  If you have time, it may make sense to combine and condense these sections into one on state initiatives.  Maybe it can even go in the history section?  I also wonder if the sections on benefits and criticisms could go more towards the end in order to reduce possible swaying of the reader.
 * Also, I am not sure I understand why the "Sexual content in media" is titled as such. I feel like that alludes to a broader topic than what is covered in this section.  Maybe something like "Sex education through and in media"?

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? . There are no images.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No content appears to have been added from the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? NA
 * How can the content added be improved? While there is currently no added content, I think future focus should primarily be on improving tone, adding sources where necessary, and reorganization.