User:AubreyBushman/Women's Healthcare in the United States in the Twentieth Century/Kash254 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? AubreyBushman
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AubreyBushman/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
The lead paragraph is generally concise and a good introduction to the rest of the article. The first two sentences are pretty similar in their ideas and words, so maybe they could be combined. I'm also unsure of what the phrase "women withholding positions of power within the government" means exactly; how could women withhold power if they didn't have it? I also think it might be helpful to mention something about the unique needs of women when it came to healthcare, and how the system had to gradually become aware of those needs. The rest of the lead paragraph does a good job at concisely summarizing the rest of the article.

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
The content is relevant and up-to-date as far as I know. Each section seems like a topic that is essential to talk about in terms of women's healthcare in the US in the twentieth century. I can't think of any other sections that I would add. I appreciate that it takes into account the struggle of minority women to also receive healthcare rights, I think this addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

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
Most of the content maintains a neutral tone. There is a sentence at the beginning of the 'Minorities' section that I think could be revised a little bit- it says "for decades, women have had to deal with sexism on a daily basis". While I absolutely think this is true, it seems like it is leading up to some kind of argument or statement that isn't neutral in nature. There's also a few times where it is mentioned that changes have happened in order to 'better fit the needs' of women (or some variation of that) and I think it could be made more neutral by replacing that phrase with something like 'more fully address the needs of women' or something along those lines.

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
The sources seem well-researched to me, and they worked when I tried them. They're referenced throughout the article. All the sources seem reliable, current, and relevant to the topic.

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 content is mostly well-written. The organization of the article seems logical, going from a wider, general topic to more specific ones. There are some grammatical errors that I think could be fixed by rereading the articles out loud.

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
There's only one image that I see- a pack of oral contraceptives that is labeled 'oral contraceptives', and this is relevant to the topic and a good image to add. I assume that it adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations but I honestly am not really sure how to check that, sorry.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements! The list of sources seems exhaustive to me- I'm sure there are a lot of resources about this topic and it would be hard to gather them all, but this seems like a good accumulation of literature. There are links within the article to other articles, like about Margaret Sanger.

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
Great work overall! I think this topic is super interesting and there's probably a lot that you could cover. The organization is great and the information that is here is very interesting. I think it could be improved just by making sure that the tone is neutral and that each of the topics are written about in detail.