User:Alejandra Navarro Rosado/Obstetrics/Paola.Franco-Negron 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? Alejandra Navarro Rosado
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Obstetrics

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 article already had an introductory sentence. The user just copies the pieces of the article that will edit, and I think that's great. It's a little hard to read and to recognize which information is about the article and which information is from the user. However, the information is very interesting.

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

Content evaluation
All the content is relevant to the topic, very interesting. There is a lot of information, but is well distributed. There is no content missing, the user explain different sub-themes that are very important for this topic.

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 tone is very professional. This type of topic requires a professional and informative tone, and the user is using it very well. The information is very broad and complete for 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the information is good, however if the user add more references and sources it will be better for the article. The references that were added on the article are completely reliable.

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 article had a good organization. As I said before, the user just have on the draft the sections that will edit so it makes a little hard the process of reading and reviewing the article. However, the way that the user organize the information on the draft is great. Other think that can do for the article is to add board, to organize more information and have different structures between each sub-theme.

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 article already had a number of images. Therefore, the user did not add new images.

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?

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
The strength of the article is on the bullet lists it has. The sub-themes are well divided and the information is distributed in a way that helps the reader to understand the content. My advice is to add a little more references and to expand a little bit the introductory sentences. You can talk about the sub-themes of the principal topic on it.