User:DHouston, UCSF PharmD Candidate/Vaginectomy/Cchiu5 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

DHouston, UCSF PharmD Candidate, TNgo UCSFPharmD, Pleung2022, K.Wong-Pharm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Vaginectomy


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vaginectomy

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
-The assigned editors of this article did a good job including an introductory sentence that defines what the article is about

-It gives a brief overview of the following sections and it is concise

Content
-The content added is relevant to the topic; the content is organized into appropriate sections recommended by Manual of Style/Medicine-Related Articles

-The content is up to date, with mostly new references from the last 5 years

-The organization (subheadings) for the Techniques section is somewhat confusing, however I do see the thought behind it

-Perhaps the subheadings for the Techniques section could be titled as "Technique for Gender Reaffirming..." etc.

-For the Contraindication section, more information could be added here. It seems unbalanced compared to other sections

Tone and Balance
-The content added is neutral; the article does not persuade readers to consider or stay away from the article's topic

-There is no bias towards a particular viewpoint on vaginectomy

Sources and References
-Great job on adding recent and new references

Organization
-See above

Images and Media
-Good utilization of images and media

Overall Impressions
-Great job overall, there is definitely a lot of effort behind this article, keep up the good work