User:Andersbc2754/Gynecologic oncology/Rgrosland 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? Andersbc2754
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Andersbc2754/sandbox

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
No update for the lead was necessary; there is already an epidemiology overview featured in the original article's lead.

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 content is factually rich with a lot of great sources backing up information. My only concern with missing or unnecessary content is that the map visual may not mirror the other written content. (See more under Images and Media section)

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 is very fact based and neutral in language.

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

Lots of great resources, I can tell you put a lot of work into your research! They all look pretty up-to-date. The only very minor thing that caught my eye is that your fourth source seemed to have a notification to check the dates on that particular reference. Other than that nice work.

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 majority of the items I found to be reviewed are just spelling and grammar related. I broke down my evaluation for this category into bullet points so that it's easier, and hopefully less overwhelming, to go through. The list looks long, but most of them are really quick and easy changes. Some of the suggestions may seem a little bit knit picky, but there were a couple of sentences where although the meaning was conveyed, it could have been phrased slightly differently to make the content sound more polished and easier to read. Overall the draft was structured to flow from idea to idea with ease, and I think that with these edits it'll make a very well-written addition to the original article.


 * Uterine cancer isn't a proper noun, so it's best to leave it lowercased.


 * When using slashes, you don't need to leave a space after the slash before the next word. (ex: and/or, not and/ or)


 * In the first sentence, "during their life" needs to be changed to either "during their lives" or "during their lifetime."


 * The sentence, "Uterine cancer resulted in 45,000 deaths worldwide in 1990 increasing to 58,000 deaths in 2010," in the first paragraph needs to be edited. "Uterine cancer resulted in 45,000 deaths worldwide in 1990, and this death rate increased to 58,000 deaths a year in 2010," is an option.


 * "Asia, Southern Europe, Australia and South America have moderate incidence rates, with the lowest rates in Africa and Eastern Asia," could be modified just a smidge. Conversationally it makes total sense, but I think it would sound a lot clearer and more professional if you added "existing" in the last chunk so it says "with the lowest rates existing in Africa and Eastern Asia."


 * "...the survival rates are high at 81.2% of women..." is the same deal as the above recommendation. It makes sense now, but it could make more sense by tweaking it just a little. I think changing it to "...the survival rates are also high with 81.2% of women..." would make the sentence flow better since you start off the sentence comparing it to incidence rate.


 * There's an itty bitty typo in the first line of the Ethnicity section, it says 10,00 instead of 10,000.


 * I think it would be easier for the reader if the sentence, "Hispanic, Asian/ Island Pacifier, and American Indian/ Alaska Native women have lower rates, with 24.1, 20.8, and 19.7 per 100,000 persons respectively," was broken down a little bit more. Maybe the sentence could end after the word "rates", and then you could list the incidence rates individually instead of clumping them? (Like how you did later in the paragraph.) The structure makes sense the way it is, but after reading the list of stats the reader has to go back to the beginning of the sentence to match them with the ethnicities, which could be confusing to some audiences.


 * There were a couple of times when you used the term "Island Pacifier" and I think you might have meant "Pacific Islander".


 * Under the United States section, I think the fragment phrase "from 35,040 women diagnosed in 1999 and 56,808 diagnosed in 2016" needs to be tweaked. You can either change "from" to "with" in the beginning of the fragment, or swap "and" with "to" in the middle.

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 map added a great visual to your article, but I question whether it's consistent with the rest of the content. It looks like Russia is really dark compared to other regions, and Southern South America also looks darker than regions that were described as having the highest rates of uterine cancer in the world. This makes me wonder whether it might be worthwhile to reexamine the accuracy of the map, and if needed add sections to the article on the frequency of uterine cancer in these areas in addition to the sections on the US and UK.

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
I was surprised at how stubby the original article was, especially for an issue that affects so many women! You're certainly adding a lot of knowledge to the page, and in turn "making the world a better place". Structurally, the content has a great flow with a strong introduction and clearly defined sections. All that I saw that could be improved were the spelling/grammar issues, the map-content consistency, and that one minor date issue with reference 6.