User:GVR117/United States abortion-rights movement/Debat012 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? (provide username)GVR117
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:GVR117/United States abortion-rights movement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? lead remained the same I believe
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? the lead is clear though, probably did not need to be altered
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? the section "In the United States, abortion is found to be one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures on women. Three out of ten women in the U.S. will undergo at least one abortion procedure by the time they turn 45. Almost one half of the pregnancies in America happen by accident, and around four out of ten of these pregnancies end in abortion." was good, but did not really circle back to that in the rest of the article. maybe move that to another section?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? lead is pretty concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? it seems that most of the new things added were more up to date than the rest of the information in the article
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I thought the content seemed like it belonged

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? seems more focused towards the left, but shows both well
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? left side is more represented
 * 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? it appears so!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? good sources and good variety of sources
 * Are the sources current? majority are from over 10 years ago, consider adding more current ones?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, it is easy to read!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? sections are broken down well!

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 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? article is much more complete!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Everything in the article seemed to be relevant to me! It seems that the democratic side is more represented, but it still remains fairly neutral. The citations are working and active, well support the article and its claims, and seem to be appropriate and balanced. However, it seems that the majority of the sources are more than 10 years old. But it appears that the most recent ones that you have added have been more recent, so that is great! Maybe see if there are some more recent articles that you could reference as well? Based on your editing history, it looks like you guys are up to a lot of good work!