User:Hannahkbaker/Assisted reproductive technology/Montero.kayla 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? (hannahbaker)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Assisted reproductive technology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * From what I can see, the lead is not currently reflecting the new content that will be added. I am unsure of the content that will be added since the sandbox has not been created.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory section that is very accurate in describing what will be mentioned in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does include a brief description on the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead is relevant to the article and does not contain extraneous information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead does its job- it stated the main topics of the article and provides a summary of the article information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * No content has been added, except a citation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No content has been added, but the article material does appear to be relevant and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content has been added.

Content evaluation
Overall, there was not added content to be evaluated. However, the topic is well developed and the material currently in the article is relevant and substantial for the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content in the article Is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article is still in its early stages so no topics have been over or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article as a whole is neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the article is neutral and since it is in its early stages only minimal information has been presented. After reading the article I felt informed and did not really feel swayed to assume a particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The article content is cited and seems to be supported by reliable information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources appear to be suitable for the literature of the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are primarily current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, I clicked on several links and they worked.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are all relevant to the article and properly cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No content has been added, but overall, the article is well written and can be logically followed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * From my reading, the content does not have any spelling or syntax errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No content has been added, but the sub-sections in the article are effective in discussing the topics of assisted reproductive technology.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized with supportive sections and content.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article contains two images. The images are nice!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images have supportive captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images do not overlap with the text and are organized on the same side so this is visually appealing.

Images and media evaluation
Overall, the article images aid in the topic and are visually appealing. They are also well captioned and organized near the text information that elaborates on the image.

For New Articles Only (ARTICLE IS NOT A NEW ARTICLE)
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?
 * No content has been added yet, however, the article is very well formatted and has a logical structure with appropriate headings.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content has yet to be added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Added content should be supplemental to what is already in the article, it should be neutral and adding images would be very appealing to the article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is at a early stage and missing added information. Once additional information is added, the article can be screened for reading flow, citations and additional images.