User:Sion00/Asylum in the United States/Careena.El-Khatib 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? (provide username) Sion00
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sion00/sandbox

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
No lead since you are just adjusting/adding to a previous article.

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?

Content evaluation
The content looks great! I like how you are aiming to create clear and concise sections; however, make sure you don't remove something that people may find valuable! For example, in the original gender section, there is a paragraph that includes Susan Berger's explanation of why the relationship between gender and sexuality leads to arbitrary case decisions. You included this sentence, but you removed the following sentences where Berger "uses case specific examples of asylum applications where gender and sexuality both act as an immutable characteristic." If you believe this isn't necessary to the overall message and aim of the article then the way you have it looks great. However, I think you should at least consider leaving this in since it may potentially help those who have less knowledge on the topic! For example, it includes the feminization of asian men, which is interesting as it ties in culture to the gender discrimination; but, this may not be necessary to the context (of which I don't completely know), so I'll let you judge for yourself haha.

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
Overall, it seems pretty neutral. Granted, with topics like the LGBTQ+ community and gender, people will have their opinions. For this reason, there may be certain sentences that have wording that may sound biased? For instance, the sentence: "This argument violates the basic concept that one's sexual orientation is a fundamental right" is pretty well accepted among our generation, but there may be a select minority who don't completely believe this is true (whether it be for religious regions, etc.). I'm not sure if this would be considered "biased," but maybe continue to look for anything that may seem like it's leaning to one side.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seems to be the same or pretty similar to the original article so as long as you have looked at those in your article evaluation and deemed them reliable, you should be in good shape!

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
I noticed you got rid of the "Mexican Transgender Asylum Seekers" and the "Human Rights Activism" sections and replaced them with "gang violence" and "climate change," which I think looks great, but maybe you could add a sentence or two about Mexican transgender asylum seekers in your "LGBTQ asylum seekers" section in order to include this information? As for human rights activism, you could omit it if you believe it is unnecessary, or you can add the gist of the section to another one of yours!

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
No images and/or media.

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 infoboxes, 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?