User:Catlynml/Carol Downer/Tmckerna 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? Catlynml
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Catlynml/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead is improved, and really summarizes the content that was added well by mentioning the self-help movement and Downer's impact by opening a clinic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes! It summarized the topic well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information mentioned is present.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise, and includes only necessary information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content that my peer added is concerning the "Self-Help Movement" (which was not mentioned in the article before she added it), and the clinic that Carol Downer started. She goes into more detail than the original article did.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it addresses women's health and abortion, both of which are historically underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, yes, although it paints doctors in a bad light as it mentions objectification of women in the health system (there's no mention of doctors who did not do this).
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Perhaps the content sways the reader in the importance of women being responsible for their own care (perhaps at the exclusion of men), however, this is not a harmful thing, and is not due how it's written. It's likely because of the evidence that supports women being responsible for their own care.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some sentences are missing citations, but most is backed up with reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Only one source is used for the entire "Self-Help Clinic One" section. But the other sections include a wider variety of sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the oldest sources are from 2004, and the newest from 2019 so they're fairly current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 6 sources are cited so far in the draft, and include almost only women, who were historically marginalized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link listed works (the rest are print sources), but one of the sources has an ISBN number which does not exist.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There was one sentence with an unnecessary comma and some unusually-structured sentences, but aside from that, the content is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only one or two grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content on Self-Help Clinic One is well organized into well-thought-out sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes! The content on Downer's Self-Help Clinic One and the Self-Help movement improve the article tremendously by adding detail.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is new content that does not exist on Downer's current Wikipedia page, so great job on that! The details of Downer's clinics were very thorough and helpful.
 * How can the content added be improved? More sources should be used in the "Self-Help Clinic One" section, as using one source for an entire section is not enough. More perspectives make for a more neutral article.