User:Jasminrw/Feminine hygiene/Stardiff9 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? (Jasminrw)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jasminrw/Feminine hygiene

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? Yes the introductory sentence lets you know to prepare for during the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes she goes over a few of the topics during the introduction, however there was a few that are left out, but this is just a rough draft, so there is more information to be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No most of what is in the lead has a section ready to go in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No over all the lead is off to a great start, once the rest of the information, the lead will come into to play with that info as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Most definitely.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No it goes over some of the major points about feminine Hygiene.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? When it comes to douching, she states it is bad for you, but all facts point to that being true, but it can be bias to some.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some are overrepresented, but on the other hand some are the opposite.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is over all neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some are and some aren't, again this just comes along with more information for the parts that do not quite have any info in them yet.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The structure, could flow a little more, but over all it was easy to follow along.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no spelling errors that I know of.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes she broke down the major points very nicely.

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? No images.
 * 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
Over all this article has a great start to it, there is still more information that awaits, but it is just the rough draft.