User:Wcubias/Frank Kameny/Courtalbanese Peer Review

General info
User:Wcubias
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Wcubias/Frank Kameny
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Frank Kameny

Lead
Guiding questions:

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

It looks like you haven't edited the lead section of the article, though I do not think you particularly need to, as it looks like most of your writings add details to what is already there, instead of introducing brand-new information about Frank Kameny.

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

No

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the lead does a good job summing up the relevant information

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes- I think your additions add necessary detail and information to the specifics of Frank Kameny's life. I appreciated that you added what he was charged with in San Francisco in 1956, as the original articles' "groping" explained was unclear about the actual encounter. Your addition to the details of his 1960s activism also adds details on his forming of the Mattachine Society of Washington and what he was able to do as the president of the organization.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, it looks like many of your sources are from the past few years, which is important as queer history is still a growing field and publications from the last few years are going to be the most in depth/critical ones you can find.

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

Not that I can see- it looks like you have added relevant information on Frank Kameny to your article.

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

By covering queer history, yes. Specific movement leaders can be rather ignored, so your contribution to Frank Kameny's page draws attention not only to him, but the Mattachine Society and the greater 1960s homophile movement.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes! Your tone remains informative, formal, and neutral through your writings.

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

No- the article with your additions remains biographical and informative, which is important for a topic like Frank Kameny, as his activism skewed rather liberal. Presenting his actions through a bipartisan, neutral point of view allows the reader to understand his successes and choices rather than political disagreements.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not that I can tell.

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

The content added is neutral and formal while still being incredibly informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

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

Yes. It seems most of your content is supported by a couple books and a few scholarly articles.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.):

Yes. It looks like you drew facts like years, dates, and organizations from the sources, rather than their opinions/perspectives on the history.

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

Yes, the sources sample from lots of literature on queer histories available in a balanced way.

Are the sources current?:

Yes- it looks like all of them were published from 2001-2020, making them incredibly relevant and current.

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

From what I can tell, yes. The sources cover queer history, and though I cannot assume the authors' sexualities, the subject base includes historically marginalized individuals and thus it is safe to assume the authors of these works took this into consideration as well.

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.):

I think the sources you chose are perfectly standard and adequate for the type of addition you are doing. They are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and seem to offer a broad understanding of queer movements of the 1960s along with information on Frank Kameny.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:

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

Overall, I think your article is incredibly well-written! There are a few parts that need a little editing, like your second paragraph under the 1960s-1970s header- the one discussing public protest. The sentences are just a little clunky and could improve with a rephrasing. Other than that, I think the part on Kameny's legal aid could use a little more context. You say he served as a in 1967, but it is a little unclear to the reader what the case was regarding. Maybe adding a sentence on the technicalities of Donald Crawford's Department of Defense Hearing and what Kameny's role specifically was in it could add a little clarity to the subject.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I couldn't spot any spelling or grammatical errors.

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

Seeing as you contributed mostly to the 1960-1970 timeline of Kameny's life and did so in a chronological way, your organization in the additions to the article make plenty of sense.

Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?


 * Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them?

It looks like you have 4 sources listed, but I trust that you are still editing your article and adding sources. It doesn't look like any of them were from our class/the suggested readings- perhaps the book on queer domesticity by Vider could add context to the homophile movement/the politics surrounding Frank Kameny in 1960s America?

Does the topic link in some way to our course material?

Yes; Frank Kameny was an active participant in the homophile movement and a gay rights activist, which ties into our class's discussions of alternative domesticity and how minority groups responded to the trends of the domestic sphere in 20th century America.

Does your peer add historical context to their article?

I think that plenty of historical context is added, as a lot of the addition is a more in-depth analysis of Frank Kameny's actions from 1960-1970 and how they tied into greater political and activism trends of the time period.

Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? :

I don't know anything more about Frank Kameny than what the original article details already. I think the details you add to the section from 1960-1970 are incredibly valuable and add important perspective and insight on his actions, as the original article does not specifically mention his founding of the DC chapter of the Mattachine Society. I also your creation of the section allows for the structure to be added upon later by other editors as well.