User:Lsaccomandi/User:Lsaccomandi/User:Lsaccomandi/Gender disparity in computing/Lilym1598 Peer 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? (Lsaccomandi)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lsaccomandi/User:Lsaccomandi/Gender disparity in computing

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The editor is editing a section of the article, so the Lead has not been added to or updated. The Lead describes the article's topic, highlighting that the gender disparity in computing is an area of global concern. The Lead touches on some of the article's major sections, but not all, so overall, the Lead could better summarize the major sections of the article, like how the article goes into factors that contribute to gender disparities and how actions are taking place to bring women into computing. Everything that is mentioned in the Lead is discussed later in the article. Overall, the Lead is concise, but it could include more details about the major sections of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The added content is relevant to the topic, as the new content provides information on a nonprofit organization, called Girls Who Code, that is doing work on closing the gender gap in technology. This information includes dates as recently as 2017. If adding to this section of information, more content could added to describe what work this nonprofit is specifically doing to close the gap and what it means to be a member of this group.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral, stating factual information in clear, concise ways. None of the content appears to be favoring any particular bias or attempting to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

All of the added content is backed up by a reliable secondary source, however, one of the sources in the bibliography is not linked properly to the direct source of the text. All of the sources are current, from 2013 and 2017.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The added content is well written and organized, and the edits on the section from the original article improve the grammar and information flow. There are not any grammatical or spelling errors that I am noticing.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• 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

The original article includes 5 images, that all enhance understanding about the topic. Some of the captions on the images in the original article could be edited to better explain what is going on in the image or why it is significant, like the image captioned "This sticker reads, 'No, this is not my boyfriend's computer'". That caption spells out the text in the image, but does not explain what this really means. The editor also added an image to the article section that they are editing, but I cannot tell what the image is; maybe the link isn't properly set up or it just isn't showing up on my end.

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?
• 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?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

I am not reviewing a new article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think the textual edits are really good and help enhance the grammar and word-flow of the section. I also think the added content is pertinent and helps expand information about the subject, by providing the example of an organization that is doing specific work to lessen the gender disparity in computing. The original article is quite long, so I really like the approach of editing just a section of the article, something I wish I had done with my article. I think this approach allows more focused and intentionally editing.