User:Evasilako/Dalkon Shield/Bschutz11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Evasilako


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * N/A
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dalkon Shield

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.)

Overall, this article is thorough and does a good job of outlining the introduction of the device all the way up to its lawsuits. The article reads well, as it follows a chronological order for the most part, so its organization is strong. However, I would suggest separating the content into different sections to reflect different themes in its history rather than having just a “history” section. For example, you could have a section about its “creation” or “introduction”, a section explaining the scientifics of it, and then its problems. This will be especially helpful as the article becomes longer. Personally, I would appreciate a section about how it works beyond the diagram, so people who aren’t as scientifically adept can still comprehend where the Dalkon Shield went wrong. As mentioned by the other peer reviewer and on the talk page, the article is very American-centric, which makes sense because it was an American device, but it had implications elsewhere, so even a subsection in the Aftermath section would be beneficial. The source list is very comprehensive and has a wide variety of types of sources from U.S. government documents to news articles to journal articles, which is a huge strength of the article. One issue I noted is there are areas (namely the Aftermath section) where it appears that citations are needed, such as where the note is, and the last paragraph, which reads as an uncited claim currently. All in all, great work, this is a strong article that can easily be improved!