User:E razo0821/Prenatal dental care/Mayamatabele 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? E razo0821
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:E razo0821/Prenatal dental care

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. I also notice that E razo0821 has made an effort to simplify any redundant or superfluous material in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Also E razo0821 has made recommendations on the talk page regarding irrelevant information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all sources within the past 3 years with the exception of one from 2008.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think this is the area that needs some work. Some sentences could be more clearly stated. Some sentences are incomplete.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are several grammatical errors that could be improved. For example, under the subheading "Psychological changes during pregnancy", there is an incorrectly placed semicolon in the first sentence. Also the heading appears incorrect - I believe "psychological" should read "physiological". There are some capitalization errors in the subtitle (Health should not be capitalized). Additional grammatical errors are included in overall evaluation section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat. I think that the ideas could be better organized into subheadings dealing with oral health as well as another for current recommendations in prenatal oral health. Also, I believe several of the topics could be expanded to include more information. I think this is a great start!

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 in sandbox currently
 * 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 N/A
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I see that E razo0821 has made an effort to add additional information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Personally, I feel that the information she has provided is the type of information that would be sought by pregnancy women who may search for more information regarding links between prenatal dental care.
 * How can the content added be improved? There are some grammatical edits that need to be made. I believe certain sentences can be rephrased so that they are more cohesive.

Overall evaluation
Overall these are really good contributions - I think you are on the right track! I would just recommend reviewing the sections and rephrasing some of the sentences so that they are more cohesive. There are multiple grammatical errors that need to be improved. For example, under the "endocrine effects on oral health during pregnancy", health should not be capitalized. Also, the following sentence under this same subheading needs to be revised: "Although teeth erosion and an increase of oral caries... experienced during pregnancy due to in increase intake..." the last part here needs to be revised. Under the subheading "Psychological changes during pregnancy", there is an incorrectly placed semicolon in the first sentence (semicolons can only separate two independent clauses that are related) and the heading itself appears incorrect - I believe "psychological" should read "physiological". In the second paragraph regarding gingivitis you state: "It is characterized with"; this should read "characterized by".

There are areas that I would recommend expanding and elaborating on. For example "During pregnancy women's calcium, phosphate, and saliva pH values...and the medium of the oral cavity". This last part is incomplete so perhaps provide additional information or rewrite the sentence. I think that the topics you are addressing are relevant to the main topic and you provide useful information. It also seems that you have some good sources. I like the way that you seem to be organizing the information. It seems like you have a lot of great information to contribute and you are off to a good start with the ideas you have presented! Nice job!