User:Escadar Alemayehu/Postpartum Depression/Meghanmcq Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Escadar Alemayehu/Postpartum Depression


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

- The lead does not reflect any edits, potentially have the group discuss the edits and additions proposed and whether or not changes need to be made to the lead in order to reflect those changes.

Content:

- the content is relevant and up to date

- overall I think all of the sections add relevant and important information and the group chose really interesting gaps in the present article to address and add to

Tone and Balance:

- I think overall there is an unbiased and objective tone and feels neutral, but I would say that the addition of proper sources in the wiki format would help clear that up as a theta moment I cannot tell what is personal writing and what is coming from a source and therefore I don't know exactly if the tone is completely objective or biased.

Sources and References:

- I think the sources can be done through the citation format through wikipedia instead of listing them at the bottom of each draft which would make the edits easier to read as well

- additionally, since they were not in the wiki format, I could not check if the source links worked

- Since there are no in text citations, it is very hard to tell where the information is coming from and if the sources are correct. (there were in-text citations I saw in the Canada and South America sections)

- I think there is a lot of great information, but it needs to be cited if it is not common knowledge and if there are more possibly biased statements being made that need a citation to back the information up

- I do think though that reputable and informative sources were used

Organization:

- overall I understand how the draft is formatted at the moment to separate each inidividual's work, but the format is a bit confusing given that each person is working on different parts of the article that might not be in order

- I might in future just put all the sections in order of how they flow in the article

- overall clear writing

Overall Impressions:

- This group picked really interesting and important areas and gaps in content to address and add to

- Additionally, all of the information was interesting, engaging and well-written

- I like that other wiki articles were linked throughout

- I really enjoyed reading the edits to the page and feel like they are all really interesting and informative. I do think in some sections there could be some paring down as some of the additions were particularly dense and long to read, so I would just go back thought and maybe assess the most important information and what might be good to remove if it is not completely integral.