User:Escadar Alemayehu/Postpartum Depression/Sophianunn Peer Review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead hasn't been updated but I believe that's because your group isn't editing the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! The content is very relevant to the topic and provides an excellent overview of PPD in different countries, cultural conceptions of PPD, and the role of the media in PPD.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the content added appears relatively up to date, with the oldest source being from 1999 while the majority are within the past 5-10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I think you guys did an excellent job filling in information that was missing from the original article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, your group did a good job not just presenting PPD through a western lens as an issue only affecting North America and Europe. I think one way you could further this is through providing a more extensive definition of PPD in different cultures as definitions differ cross-culturally.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No! I think you guys did a great job maintaining neutrality
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As I said before, I think the only thing is just the definition of PPD, maybe just make sure that you emphasize that its definition is typically framed with a western definition in mind.
 * 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!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes!
 * Are the sources current? sources are relatively current. Most of them are within the past 5 years, only a few are from a while ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There's some grammatical errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, very well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)