User:Hforensics19/Forensic podiatry/JessicaWalsh687 Peer Review

General info
(Hforensics19)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Hforensics19/Forensic podiatry
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Forensic podiatry

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.)

Content
The content that was added to the article by Hforensics19 was/is relevant to the topic of Forensic Podiatry that was selected by Hforensics19. The content that was added was up to date and not outdated and irrelevant. I believe that no content was missed and I believe that all the content that was added does belong in this article especially the parts that discuss some of its history. I don't believe that this article is apart of one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, as its topic is not one that is about historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and balance
I believe that the content that was added to the article is neutral and it shows no bias. I don't think any of the information and content that was added is bias towards a particular position. Don't think the view posts added to the article are either overrepresent or underrepresented, I think the view point is right in between and doesn't favor any position. The content added does not try to persuaded the readers of the article onto any side or skew their view point and thoughts.

Sources and references
The references in both the bibliography and the ones chosen for the content that was added to the article are from reliable secondary sources in my opinion and the content that was taken from the sources can be found in the sources. I believe the sources chosen are pretty thorough and are informative on the topic that was chosen. Written by good authors that have working links.

Organization
The content added to the article is well written with no visible spelling errors off of the first glance and the content in my opinion is well organized and in order.

Overall impressions
I think the content added to the article was appropriate to the topic chosen and it was a good addition to the article that would help it be better understood, I especially liked the addition of more history to forensic podiatry that you added, a thought for next time would be to maybe try to add some photos of the methods used in Forensic Podiatry, Overall very well done!