User talk:Ojg5046/Legal status of Internet pornography

Akshat Desai's review
Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Ojg5046 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography Lead:

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead seems up to date. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead could have started in a better way. Introductory sentence missing. The Lead concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Yes, but could have started off better. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no, it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise Lead evaluation

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? Content evaluation It does address topics related to underrepresented topics. Pornography continues to be a taboo.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. 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? Check a few links. Do they work? They work Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The Content is well-written, it covers the main topic and subtopics. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content has a few grammatical mistakes. The sentences could have been structured better. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No image added Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

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? Clear and concise information, well-organized. How can the content added be improved? Could improve the lead. Overall evaluation