User:Sylvierichards/Rainbow wave/Gobears12 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sylvierichards


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sylvierichards/Rainbow_wave?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rainbow wave

Evaluate the drafted changes
II. Evaluate the article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media
III. Overall impressions

This article is very strong. It dramatically expands the information available on Wikipedia related to this topic, and is very well-written and thoroughly sourced. The article’s greatest strength is tracking the progress of descriptive representation for LGBTQ+ Americans from 2018 to the present. This section is rife with data and examples, and is very extensive.

As mentioned in my comments above, the main way in which the article could be improved is by expanding upon other dimensions of the topic. The history section is a good place to start, as there is already some information to work with. I would recommend adding some data about the total number of LGBTQ+ candidates running for and winning elected office in the 1960-2018 period to go along with the individual examples listed under this section.

Second, I think the page could benefit from some analysis that discusses potential reasons for the consistent increase in the number of LGBTQ+ politicians over time, particularly since 2018. Is this progress the result of changing social norms? Or a more concerted effort to recruit LGBTQ+ candidates? Furthermore, what does the partisan breakdown of LGBTQ candidates look like, and why? Are there any notable implications for substantive representation? These are all questions that I would love to know more about, and some analysis would really elevate this article.

~ Gobears12 (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)