User talk:Roxlindy/Bisexual erasure

Hey Roxy! Here's my peer review:

Lead

The new lead starts off with data and numbers, which make the article more engaging.

Content

I consider the content added relevant to the topic, as well as up-to-date. All the content was appropriate and definitely belonged in the article, in my opinion. It deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses a historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

The content is presented in a neutral tone, except by the end, when it seems more like an opinion–even if I agree with it personally.

Sources and References

The content is high quality, backed up by relevant and reliable sources of information.

Organization

The content added is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. I appreciate the order of the content and how in ends with a solution, but it should be changed so it doesn't sound too biased.

Overall impressions

The content added has helped me better understand the issue, and the way it was presented was a key part of it. I would put dividers in-between the parts, with subheadings. But, in general, very good job!

- Isma

Ismahd (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead:

Does not look like Roxlindy made any changes to the lead but the lead does mention the section they edited/added about mental health.

Content:

The content added is definitely relevant to the topic as feeling like one is invisible or that their sexuality is not valid can certainly lead to adverse mental health effects. The content is up to date as many of the sources are from 2020-2022 and there does not seem to be anything missing or that does not belong. I think the article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as there does not seem to be much information on bisexual erasure on Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Tone and Balance:

The first two paragraphs seem pretty neutral but the last two are not neutral. The look at how readers can "help eradicate the imposter syndrome within the queer communities" and how they can support the bisexual community. While I believe this is very important, it does not seem Wikipedia is the place for opinions and how to create change simply because it is suppose to be a neutral and informative article that gives basic information so I would take that section out and possible replace it with statistics and facts on what people have already done to help in this area, but even then I am not sure that would make it neutral as the article is about what and where bisexual erasure is, not about how to end it. The claim is the last two paragraphs are not necessarily bias but they do voice a particular narrative. The content attempts to persuade the reader in favor of supporting the LGBT community and creating change surrounding bisexual erasure which I agree with but again is not the neutral tone I think Wikipedia is looking for.

Sources and References:

There appear to be only four sourced used in the added section which I think is fine for a short section but many of the claims are not backed up by sources and are more like opinions. Some of the content does not accurately represent what the references say. According to source 1, 54.6% of LGBT adults however this added section has it written as 56.8%. I also see nothing in the source linked to the statistics on which gender feels safer coming out as bisexual. The added information claims it is 33% of women and 12% of men but that is not anywhere in that source. I like the information and the source for information stated about negative mental health outcomes and how BIPOC people are effected but I would take out words like "unfortunately" because they are not neutral. The Bisexual Resource Center also does not seem like a very neutral source. Two of the sources, the resource center and the Healthline article are not really written by a credited author and the resource center is more of a website than any kind of written article. The links work but I think there may be some formatting issues. Some better sources might be a chapter called "The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure 1" in the book Sexuality and Equality Law by Kenji Yoshino (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315088051-11/epistemic-contract-bisexual-erasure-1-kenji-yoshino) or this article titled "The Invisi_les: Biphobia, Bisexual Erasure and Their Impact on Mental Health" by Andrea Pennasilico (https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/4902268).

Organization:

The content is well-written despite not being entirely neutral but I would recommend not saying "you" and changing it to feel less like an essay and more like an informative article. I do not see many grammatical or spelling errors and it is organized into sections well.

Overall:

Overall, I think that the section added on mental health and imposter syndrome is a very good addition to the article but it needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone and focus more on the facts and statistics of mental health and bisexual people. I would focus on writing it more as a neutral article and steer away from trying to persuade readers and look into different sources. I think much of the information is helpful to the article though and just needs to be written in a different way. Laurencraven (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review Completed
Hi Roxlindy, I've just completed my peer review of your article draft and share the previous peer reviewer's recommendation. The content you added was very informative and an important addition to the larger article, however, it began to take on a persuasive and personal tone near the end. Jasminegpaz (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Jasminegpaz