User:Jasminrw/Feminine hygiene/Kumpf.Vanessa 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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article does not seem to be changed from the original, but it is noted that it may be changed in the future. The introductory sentence reflects what is going to be in the article. The lead seems like it contains a lot more information than the rest of the article. Also i felt there was a lot of listing of items in the lead, maybe some of the lists could be shortened someway.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
The current content added is relevant to the topic and is up to date. Content could be a little more dense throughout.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
This content is neutral, all the content added does not support one opinion or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources listed seem to be credible, and current they are all dated recently like

OrganizationRabin, Roni Caryn (2019-07-16). "A Better Way to Manage Your Period? Try the Menstrual Cup, Scientists Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331

which is good because it provides some of the most recent information on the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content added is easy to read and is clear about each subject and what the feminine hygiene products do. The content is very neat and organized in a way that is easy for the reader to follow along and find the information they need.

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

Overall evaluation
Overall i really like the layout of this article and how it reads and how it reads. The article seems to be a bit more complete but it does still need some more information in Risks, Society and culture, and a little more information in the cleansing products section. The content could be improved by adding more descriptors in the sections listed. How do they items work? What do they do?