User:Jadeevelynn/Transfeminism/SweetandSaltyGrrl Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing?

Jadeevelynn

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Jadeevelynn/Transfeminism

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

Transfeminism

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Hi Jade! Here's my review of your contributions to the article.

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?

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

In regards to the lead of the article, there haven't been any changes made but this article seems to have a pretty solid lead. However, the article seems to be about Transfeminism as an overall and if you'd like, it might be a good idea to lightly introduce the concept of transmasculine feminism so it would set up a bit of a structure for the rest of the article.

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

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

On the section about History, this is a very well-written section but it goes along with the overall topic of transfeminism and doesn't seem to specify transmasculine feminism during that portion. Personally, I would like to see a timeline of transmasculine feminism and its emergence. the history of trans health care entering public insurance is an extremely important topic for sure and I do like how it's written. Maybe this could be added during the Gender dysphoria section of the transfeminism article and segue into healthcare, while the transmasculine feminism history can go as a separate section. I like the current issues section very much as it goes into the experiences of transmasculine individuals in regards to the movement and their relationship with feminism and masculinity.

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

The content added seems relatively up to date but I feel there could be more added considering the most recent date mentioned is 2013. The Differences from Transfeminism portion hasn't been finished yet but I do look forward to seeing how that portion unfolds considering how well-written the rest of the article is.

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

The article cleverly addresses the transgender community, and even more specifically transmasculine individuals whose experiences are often sidelined even within the transgender community. The transgender community is historically underrepresented and this article works towards Wikipedia's equity gap on the transgender community.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The content added seems relatively neutral and seems committed to neutrality throughout. It explains positions taken by various sides and viewpoints. On the claim "Raymond was perceived to be a progressive expert," I would like some more detail into what exactly The Transsexual Empire said in the book that caused transgender surgeries to be excluded from public insurance coverage. I feel that "This led to fear and a constant feeling of being threatened for simply existing in the trans community." and "Each movement would be complemented by what the other had done on its own once they converged again at a later time." seem like the author making claims rather than sources making claims about viewpoints. I don't question the validity of these sentences but I'd prefer for there to be direct citations at the end of most of the sentences so they sound less like opinions and more like academic sources.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I would like some more information on Raymond's publication so I can know her viewpoint and contrast how The Empire Strikes Back functioned as a response to it. Also when it comes to Current issues, I notice it uses the phrasing "some believe" a substantial amount, but I would like to be able to associate some names and references to these.

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

The content doesn't seem to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any positions, it rather gives the reader a layout of experiences so they can form their opinions. I like the content added in terms of neutrality.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current?

I'm assuming that the entirety of the history section is covered by "Trans, Feminism: Or, Reading like a Depressed Transsexual." I like the choice of this source as it's an in-depth analysis of transfeminism from 2017, and it goes through other sources throughout history while analyzing the role of transgender individuals in feminism, as well as perspectives. However, I would like to see The Transsexual Empire and The Empire Strikes Back cited as well. The Current Issues section is well cited and the content seems to reflect the content of the cited sources well. TransForming Politics by Krista Scott-Dixon is reliable and thorough, as Scott-Dixon specializes her scholarship on transfeminism. Trans Men Engaging, Reforming, and Resisting feminisms seems to be the most scholarly article as it uses personal experiences and thoroughly goes through their experiences as a series of interviews. It's from 2016 as well so it's relatively current.

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

Cameron Awkward-Rich who wrote "Trans, Feminism: Or, Reading like a Depressed Transsexual." is a black man who is an assistant professor of Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies at UMass Amehurst. Krista-Scott Dixon is an editor at Trans-Health.com, does research at York University, and is a fitness coach. Miriam J Abelson is a progessor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Portland State University whose work centers around race, gender, and class.

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.) Check a few links. Do they work?

I believe that the current sources are very good sources as they are all scholarly articles and reliable sources by researchers. However, since there are only 3 sources and there's an incomplete section, maybe this article may be a good idea to use. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-trans/

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?

The content does not seem to have noticeable spelling and grammatical errors as far as I can observe.

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

The content is decently organized but I feel it could be rearranged a bit to give even more depth into transmasculine feminism.

Guiding questions:

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

The article will have a much more rounded perspective of transfeminism thanks to the content added.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content added brings in an often marginalized viewpoint and goes in depth about the experiences and viewpoints mentioned. The writing is very clear and easy to read and has great clarity.

How can the content added be improved?

The content may be improved with the usage of more sources and with more specificity on the transmasculine experience and its relation to feminism.