User:Ines.marquina97/Adenomyosis/Winged Scapula 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? Ines.marquina97
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adenomyosis&oldid=964305071

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it covers some of the causes of adenomyosis
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it uses a review article from 2015
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. In the future, I think it would be a good idea to go through and look at some of the content that has "citation needed" tags, plus some of the references that need slight updating in terms of dates and such.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it fulfills the goal set out of using simpler language
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some typoes that can be fixed with a little work
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think having path as a subsection under "Mechanism" is a good move, but I'd have to check the manual of style to say definitively.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?