User:Estherjacob/Gender bias in medical diagnosis/Foxypolymath Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? User:Esterjacob
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Gender bias in medical diagnosis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
My peer has updated primarily other sections of this article that she is working to improve, and this peer has yet to update or improve the Lead in any way. The current Lead consists of two succinct sentences; however, I feel that the Lead could be expanded upon slightly in order to provide greater detail. This article's Lead does not include any information not present in the article which is a positive point to note.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added by my peer is relevant and up-to-date with regards the topic. The link that was added by the peer is from October, 2018 which is recent. As for content not added by my peer, I feel the section "Psychological diagnosis" could be cleaned up and potentially separated into a couple of subsections for further clarity based on specific studies (BPD and PTSD study).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and so far mostly consists of links and some new information. The content added actually helps balance the viewpoints represented in this article. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another aside from additional ways in which to avoid gender bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes, all of the new content is backed up by reliable secondary source information. The sources are thorough and current. I tried a few links and they all worked properly. The sources currently provided do appear to reflect the available literature on the topic, but I do feel that more sources could be added.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall this article still requires work. I found the Lead paragraph to be too short and in need of slight expansion. Additionally, the section "Psychological diagnosis" could be redesigned and possibly reconstructed with some subsections in order to include specific clinical trials. This would provide the reader further clarity as they read. While I read this article I also noticed some grammatical errors that could be quickly fixed through copy editing.

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?

Images and media evaluation
This article does not include any peer added images or media, but I do feel it would be a nice addition to this article.

For New Articles Only
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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added by my peer improved the quality of the article and made the article more complete. The addition of the link and information regarding alternative options in order to avoid gender bias I found especially beneficial as a contribution. This article could be further improved with an addition of images or media relevant to this article, and or expanding and altering the Lead paragraph. Adding more references to this article would also be beneficial.