User:Annasandberg/Hormonal contraception/Hogyuchoi93 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? (provide username)
 * Annasandberg
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Annasandberg/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been only been written in the sandbox
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does, its a subtopic of types of contraception pills and the variety type of pills, although only plan b is being sold.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Because it is a sub topic I don't think it mentions a brief description of the articles major section, but a rather descriptive information on the type of contraception pills
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I don't think so
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes it is very concise and thorough, felt like an actual wikipedia section

Lead evaluation
10/10

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is extremely relavent
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, it is within 2014
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I believe with my understanding it should belong there.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, it is spoken in a neutral tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No bias information, just facts
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, not that I know of
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not try to persuade the reader, just explains information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it is, it is a article that have been recommended from clinicians
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, it is they do reflect the literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, it is 2014, it has only been 4 years since it has been published.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the link works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I read it, it was thorough enough for me to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I'm pretty bad at grammar myself, so its hard to say, but from reading it, it didn't sound wrong.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I thought it was very well organized for me enough to understand it well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images, no need for copyrights.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No 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?
 * I believe there is only one, but the resource used is extremely reliable.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * the source does represent 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?
 * yes it follows the pattern
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * I believe so.

Overall impressions
I think the article was well written and there should not be a problem with having it published on wikipedia.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes it would be better with it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It gives more detail on the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think with the article that the person wrote it good enough.

Overall evaluation
10 out of 10, written concisely and is very informative.