User talk:Mfisher22/sandbox

= Peer review by Authenticfolk = Great job!

General Info
Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Mfisher22

Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Mfisher22/sandbox

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the lead is the same.

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?


 * No.

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


 * No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * Very concise -- only two sentences.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * Yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?


 * Only one source from 1990 is cited, which isn't terrible considering the possible lack of critical sources. There is a nice balance of years relating to her background and her current work.

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


 * There is frequent mention of leather woman/leatherman, so I think mentioning her significance in that field may me important to note in the lead.

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


 * It summarizes the life of a lesbian Chinese-American bodybuilder and leather woman. I think this is an extremely important contribution, as I had not heard of Tsui before this.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?


 * Yes.

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


 * No, unless you could argue that Tsui's work is not groundbreaking or that there was already a known lesbian Chinese-American author before Tsui.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * There is a focus on Tsui's writing and activism, and less on her acting and bodybuilding.

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


 * That Tsui is "a leader in the Asian Pacific Islander queer movement in San Francisco." However, the use of the phrase "is widely recognized" acknowledges that this is just the stance of a majority and not that of the author(s).

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * Only one source is added in the sandbox, but the original article has sources throughout. It is hard to what is added since some of the sentences are the same, but the points seem to be backed up.

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


 * Yes.

Are the sources current?


 * Yes.

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


 * It appears there is a spectrum, but it is unclear whether they are historically marginalized individuals.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''


 * Yes.

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


 * Yes, I find the added sections to be a very welcome change. The added writing flows nicely with that which was already there.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * No, only minor edits.

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


 * Yes.

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


 * Yes, it helps fill in the blanks.

What are the strengths of the content added?


 * It has neutral wording and the organization strengthens the article.

How can the content added be improved?


 * Balance the lengths of/information in the sections.