User:Vamptiger/This Book is Good/Genieinabottle123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Vamptiger


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iECK3xyAe0LlhgmmuXUJMbzBx_KjxbT07ByglMOJMJY/edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * This Book is Gay

Evaluate the drafted changes
Note: I think this draft is super solid and is overall off to a great start! I think more on the banned/attempted ban section would be great as I know that is a huge part of why the book has so much controversy surrounding it.

Lead

 * I am assuming their book summary section will go under the lead. Either way, it adds pertinent information to the article.
 * Not applicable since lead introductory sentence already exists.
 * Not applicable since the existing article already has a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Yes, the lead includes information not already present in the existing article.
 * The lead is appropriately concise.

Content

 * Yes, there are some great sections that will be relevant to the article.
 * Yes, the content is up to date.
 * No, there is no content missing or content that does not belong.
 * Yes, the article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps as this article discusses an LGBTQ+ book that is currently banned. Yes, it addresses historically underrepresented populations/topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * No, there are no claims that are heavily biased.
 * No, all the viewpoints are relevant to the article.
 * No, the author does not attempt to persuade the audience of a certain position.

Sources and References

 * The summary portion does not have references to back it up. I am assuming the student just read the book. Other than that, the other information has reliable secondary sources.
 * Yes, the content accurately represents the information in the cited sources.
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and reflects the available literature on the topic.
 * Yes, the sources are current even citing an article from this year.
 * No, there are only two sources so far with one being a news article and the other being a website on books. I trust that the author will have more underrepresented sources once they add more information.
 * Yes, there are some great peer review articles.
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization

 * Yes, the content is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * This is super nitpicky, but under the Bans & Attempted Bans section, quotations of a quote have singular quotes. Other than that, all looks well.
 * Yes, the content is super well organized!

Images and Media

 * No images added yet.

For New Articles Only

 * Not applicable.

Overall Impressions

 * Yes, the content has improved the quality of the overall article. It definitely feels more complete.
 * The strength lies in the book summary by chapters as it allows audiences like myself to get a glimpse into what the book is about and why people chose to ban it. It allows me to make my own opinion on the topic.
 * This article could be improved by having more on the bans/attempted bans section and adding more sources from underrepresented sources/voices.