User talk:MaxW2002/Bisexual erasure/Gussbus Peer Review

Peer review

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

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? Yes

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content added up-to-date? yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does, The topic is addressed

Tone and Balance: it has a nice flow of information: The article has a nice flow and tone of the passage.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes has one two sided information. Explaining the disbeliefs and struggle of other people not believing.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it shows the disbelief of bisexuality and how people don't believe in it but it shows how it is fighting for the topic.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, view points are good!

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, just states the opposition.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

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

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

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

Are the sources current? No and yes some is updated but some are old.

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

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.) Not sure, but the sources that are attached are good.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but at first come across against bisexuality but further down it goes with the topic.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but could be broken more into sections maybe saying the opposition first than go more into detail.

Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes bi flag

Are images well-captioned? Yes shows the flag

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes I believe so.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes just shows the flag to represent bisexuality.

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes

What are the strengths of the content added? More Detail into the passage

How can the content added be improved? Maybe split the bias part into a separate part, then tie it into why bisexuality exist. To explain more, so show the opposition or people not believing it then after get into the actual reason why.