User:Escadar Alemayehu/Postpartum Depression/Rka77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Laurencox1, Cek78


 * 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
Hi guys! Here's my peer review:

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to  reflect the new content added by your peer? - I noticed that you didn't draft a new lead to reflect the changes being made to the article. I'm not sure if you were planning to update it, but I think it would be useful to make some edits that will help the lead be more reflective of the article once your content is added.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is there content that is missing or content that doesn't belong? - I think you guys added some really interesting content to the article and is definitely relevant to the current article. I didn't notice any content that looked out of place or like it didn't belong.
 * Is the content added up to date? - Most of the content added appears relatively up to date with sources from within the last two decades. I know that there is a lot of research being done on Postpartum Depression and i am wondering if you might be able to find a few more recent sources? For the sections addressing postpartum depression on different continents, it seems like it would be especially important to make sure that your content is accurate and up to date, so it might support the credibility of the article if you were able to find more recent sources.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Seeing as PPD is traditionally an underrepresented topic, I think you guys definitely addressed an important topic. Furthermore, you addressed this topic in terms of marginalized populations around the globe and within specific countries, making the content even more important and informative.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Reading your article, I definitely felt that the overall tone was neutral. The information was presented in a very factual matter and I didn't feel that I was being pushed towards any specific viewpoint or opinion. The only sentence that felt like it might not be neutral without a specific citation was: "There is a general assumption that Western cultures are homogenous and that there are no significant differences in psychiatric disorders across Europe and the USA."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - Because the content of your article was largely based in presenting facts and examples, I didn't identify any point at which there was a specific viewpoint that was overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - I'm assuming that you will be putting your content into the proper Wikipedia format in the future, but the way the information is presented right now, I wasn't able to tell whether specific sentences or statements are supported by reliable sources. To be honest, for the amount of content that you have collectively added to this article, I was very surprised by how few sources are cited throughout the article. It's good that for the most part, all of your sources are reviews and therefore your content is based on secondary sources, but I think it would be helpful if you could find more sources to support your information. It is slightly concerning when there are entire sections of content presented, but it appears that only one source is being cited. Since those sources are reviews, this makes the information more reliable, but I think it would support the credibility of your content if you are able to find additional sources that also corroborate what you are stating.
 * One case in which you should probably try to find a secondary source would be for the stigma section because I noticed that the only source you have cited for all that information is a primary research article. So the content derived from this source may not be fully representative of the situation. Maybe you can find an article which cites the one that you have already used as a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Since you addressed such a wide range of information, your sources also appear to span a wide range. The mostly appear to be journal articles, so I wonder if other types of media which present reliable information might help lend other perspectives to your content? Potentially a well-researched piece in a medical magazine, news article or documentary?
 * Are the sources current? - See question above about content being up to date.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I had a difficult time trying to figure out where the content you are adding is supposed to go in the article—I'm still not quite sure I got it—but I think the sections you have outlined are clear cut and it seems like they will fit well in the existing article. The language in the article was very accessible and you did a really good job of keeping things concise. In the existing article, the section about Risk Factors seemed disjointed but I think you did a nice job of making it flow nicely.
 * One instance where changing the sentence structure might make you point more clear is: "Regarding gender of the child, many studies have suggested dissatisfaction in infant’s gender (birth of a baby girl) is a risk factor for PPD." - I think it might be helpful to specify in a sentence that having a female child can be a risk factor rather than just putting it in parentheses. Especially because this has historically been and still is such a significant issue.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I think the content is organized into sections reflective of the material. I believe this will become more clear once it is incorporated into the existing page.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? How can the content added be improved? - I think the content you have added to the article will enhance its informational value and provide a more well-rounded view of PPD around the world. Unfortunately, because of the way that you listed your sources in the draft, I was unable to tell where the individual facts and pieces of information presented in your draft are coming from, so you citations are definitely something that needs to be fixed. Other than that, one thing I would say could be improved is to maybe try to find some more sources to support your content because to me, it felt like for the amount of information you are adding to the article, there weren't that many sources cited. I think this would just add to the credibility of the information.