User:Escadar Alemayehu/Postpartum Depression/Kfreda Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Escadar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Escadar Alemayehu/Postpartum Depression
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Postpartum depression

Lead
It doesn't seem like the authors are planning to change the lead section. The existing section looks like it provides a good definition and summary of what will be discussed in the article itself. The one thing that I think the authors could consider adding is a sentence that alludes to all of the changes they're adding in terms of effects of cultural differences and social support for minoritized groups on PPD.

Content
I think the article did a good job representing historically underrepresented populations (African American mothers, lesbian and bisexual mothers, mothers with chronic illnesses, single mothers, indigenous and immigrant Canadian mothers) and expanding on a multicultural representation of PPD by giving more attention to global epidemiology. I am very impressed by the breadth of content added, particularly the number of new subsections created from scratch for the epidemiology section and the section on stigma.

Tone and Balance
I think the authors strike a good tone and balance in their edits. The section on society and culture is particularly well-handled. I think the authors do a good job of representing a wider variety of perspectives than the current article, especially by expanding the geographical/cultural representation to include all of the continents instead of being very US-centric and grouping the entire rest of the world into one Global subsection.

Sources and References
It's a bit hard to tell what the sources belong to because they aren't integrated in-text. Just by looking, the choice of sources all seems good, though I would recommend utilizing the reflist template to put them into the correct format and putting in the superscript in-text citations so we know where the specific information is coming from. All of the sources seem very up to date, based on the dates of publication. In general, it seems like the authors sometimes devoted entire paragraphs to explaining one of their sources. I know it is hard to summarize findings of a whole article or review succinctly, but I think it might be better to cut those sections down a bit or find other supporting sources to bring into those paragraphs so that not so much of the page/representation is coming from just one place.

Organization
The content of the risk factors section is really interesting but I think it could be organized in a way that would make more sense. For example, it would make more sense to put the section on paternal PPD at the end of that section instead of in the middle of risk factors affecting maternal PPD. The spelling/grammar looks good throughout. This is super minor, but I think the section on Asia would flow a lot better if the facts were followed directly by explanations (for example, [fact] because [explanation]) instead of going [Fact]. This is because... [explanation].

Overall Impressions
Overall, I think the authors have done a very impressive job at identifying and filling content gaps in what is already a more well-developed article. I think that the authors could benefit from finding a few more supporting sources for some of the sections that depend heavily on one or two sources and making sure to add the in-text citations for their information and possibly integrate an introductory sentence or two for the new sections they have added in the lead, particularly the international perspectives.