User:Emilia.boleyn/Postpartum depression/SpiderBrooke. Peer Review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Emilia.boleyn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Postpartum depression

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Unsure. The draft doesn't include section titles. The published article has a sentence introducing and defining postpartum depression.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No the draft doesn't include this. The published article has a content table, including sections and what topics are covered in that section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The draft isn't overly detailed and contains concise explanations and data.

Lead evaluation[edit]
I'm unsure if the lead has been updated in the users draft version compared to the published version because there is no section titles in the users draft. I'm assuming the first paragraph is the lead. If this is accurate I think the lead has too much data when introducing the topic.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation[edit]
The content in the users draft is up to date and also comes from credible sources such as the CDC.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
The content within the users draft is neutral. She isn't trying to represent one viewpoint. The user is only presenting data and explanations to that data.

Sources and References[edit]
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
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked all three sources, they bring me to the correct sources.

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
The data within the users draft is cited with credible and up to date sources.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? "Most studies regarding are done using self-report screenings which are less reliable than clinical interviews.  This use of self-report may have results that underreport symptoms and thus postpartum depression rates." These two sentences in particular could be changed to be clearer. I think the user should re read the draft and make it clearer.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not spelling errors, but small edits such as changing words and adding more punctuation would make the draft clearer.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. No indication of what paragraphs are for what section.

Organization evaluation[edit]
The draft should have section titles. Without them I don't know where any of paragraphs are going in the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images or media in the users draft.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images or media in the users draft.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images or media in the users draft.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images or media in the users draft.

Images and media evaluation[edit]
No images or media in the users draft.

For New Articles Only[edit]
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? Not a new article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not a new article.
 * 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? Not a new article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not a new article.

New Article Evaluation[edit]
Not a new article.

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, more data and explanations on the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The main strength is the data.
 * How can the content added be improved? Edit to make easier to read and add section titles.

Overall evaluation[edit]
Overall, the draft includes great data from credible sources. The draft could be edited to make it easier to read and understand. I couldn't give in detailed feedback because there was no section titles so I wasn't sure where the information was being edited into or added into the published article.