User:Sylvierichards/Rainbow wave/Gobears12 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Sylvierichards

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sylvierichards/Rainbow_wave?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Rainbow wave

Evaluate the drafted changes

II. Evaluate the article

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

QUESTION	YES/NO	COMMENTS
Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?	Yes	The lead could be reworked to speak more generally about the progress of LGBTQ+ candidates contesting and winning elections. The body of the article already includes lots of numbers, so I don’t think there need to be so many of them in the lead.
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?	No	Related to the comment directly above, the lead could provide a bit of a broad overview of how LGBTQ+ representation has grown over time, which would help connect the historical section to that about the election cycles since 2018
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)	No
Is the lead concise (as opposed to overly detailed)?	Yes

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

QUESTION	YES/NO	COMMENTS
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?	Yes	The draft has a very heavy focus on the number of LGBTQ candidates running for and winning office. I think this could be expanded upon by analyzing why we are seeing progress over time in this area.
Is the content up-to-date?	Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?	Yes	As stated above, some information about what is behind the trends documented in the article would be very helpful
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? That is, does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?	Yes

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

QUESTION	YES/NO	COMMENTS
Is the article neutral?	Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?	No	The draft has a very balanced tone and looks almost exclusively at positive, rather than normative, questions about the topic.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?	No
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?	n/a
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?	No

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

QUESTION	YES/NO	COMMENTS
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?	Yes	The article is remarkably well-sourced and dense with information (and citations).
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?	No	The sources are very extensive on the topic of how many LGTBQ candidates are contesting and winning elections, but lacks information on other issues important to the topic. Sources analyzing what is behind the rainbow wave, and sources that provide more depth on the history of LGBTQ politicians, would greatly improve the article.
Are the sources current?	Yes
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.)	No
Check a few links. Do they work?	Yes

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

QUESTION	YES/NO	COMMENTS
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?	Yes
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?	Yes	“rainbow wave” is capitalized at some points and not at others
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?	Yes	The history section could benefit from more detail.

Images and Media

QUESTION	YES/NO	COMMENTS
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?	Yes
Are images well-captioned?	Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?	Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?	Yes

III. Overall impressions

This article is very strong. It dramatically expands the information available on Wikipedia related to this topic, and is very well-written and thoroughly sourced. The article’s greatest strength is tracking the progress of descriptive representation for LGBTQ+ Americans from 2018 to the present. This section is rife with data and examples, and is very extensive.

As mentioned in my comments above, the main way in which the article could be improved is by expanding upon other dimensions of the topic. The history section is a good place to start, as there is already some information to work with. I would recommend adding some data about the total number of LGBTQ+ candidates running for and winning elected office in the 1960-2018 period to go along with the individual examples listed under this section.

Second, I think the page could benefit from some analysis that discusses potential reasons for the consistent increase in the number of LGBTQ+ politicians over time, particularly since 2018. Is this progress the result of changing social norms? Or a more concerted effort to recruit LGBTQ+ candidates? Furthermore, what does the partisan breakdown of LGBTQ candidates look like, and why? Are there any notable implications for substantive representation? These are all questions that I would love to know more about, and some analysis would really elevate this article.

~~~~ Gobears12 (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)