User:JamieCheyenne31/Home birth/S300777482 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? JamieCheyenne31
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamieCheyenne31/Home_birth/S300777482_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead tells you what home birth is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead mentions some of the topics but not others.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a little overly detailed with the percentages and dates.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, It all has something todo with home birth.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes there are some years inserted throughout this that are outdated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of this content belongs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None of this information has opinions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some of the headings have to much information on them.
 * 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? This Content has websites links at the bottom.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? Some of them were outdated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There were a couple that didn't work and they were highlighted in red.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There were a couple parts that were hard to understand. I you just read through again you would see where they are.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I did not see anything major.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the sections were very organized.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I only saw one image which was at the end and it was a map tat did not really relate to home birth

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? There was a lot of helpful information.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think it was overall good.