User:GVR117/United States abortion-rights movement/Piepe074 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? (Sinno024, Hugue008, GVR117)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:United States abortion-rights movement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Somewhat
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I could see
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

==== Sources and references evaluation: while not all of the sources are current, the topic itself is not a new one. And older source may be needed in order to get the origins of the topic. I don't find a fault in this. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Few, if any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part

==== Organization evaluation: there are a couple of sections that felt wordy, or redundant, but it didn't pull away from the topic. There are a few extra spaces between words from time to time, and a couple of comas are missing, but other than that it is well done. Some of the larger sections, history, could use some further breaking down and subheaders. ====

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation: the further explanation of abortion rights and laws is helpful and clarifying to the article, the addition of further historical evidence and stories further cements the issues that surround this topic. ====