User:Acho01604/Religion and abortion/Lunarmoon13 Peer Review

General info
User:Acho01604
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Acho01604/Religion and abortion
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Religion and abortion

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would change this to make it more neutral, removing "our": Each religion has different teachings, deities, values, and perspectives on topics surrounding our world today.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Could use additional development.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I appreciate the sentiment of these lines, but they seem persuasive in nature and may need to be changed: "It's important to note that within each religion, there may be diverse interpretations and individual beliefs. If you happen to approach these discussions that you don't agree with, please show respect and open-mindedness."

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? Not applicable
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, Acho01604 did a great job bringing in ideas from multiple faiths.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Listed above in lead section, some content seems not neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all good.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, good job overall.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources could be bulked up, but author mentioned in article the sources they still plan to insert, so problem seems to be already being addressed.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? is third source relevant?
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Appears applicable.
 * 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.) Author already on top of this.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Appears functional.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, great work so far!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minor errors but extremely impressive start.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, good work.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not applicable.
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, author did an impressive amount of development.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More representation of different religions helped to improve original article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Suggestions noted above particularly in lead section, but overall, great job!