User:Jnk03/Gender bias in medical diagnosis/Josiemills99 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)
 * Jnk03 (Gender bias in medical diagnosis)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jnk03/Gender bias in medical diagnosis

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
I don't think that the lead was edited/I am not sure if they are planning to edit the lead, but the first line of each paragraph lays out the topic and the headings are also pointed so I think that it is good in terms of telegraphing what the information is about.

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 two paragraphs are both good overviews and cohesive. I think that the second paragraph may not completely fit under this article heading, as the page seems more directed to diagnoses and not as much popular culture but I also think that frequently wiki pages have some information that is not exactly the topic that leads to other research questions, so it is probably fine. The information is all up to date.

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
The content is obviously biased towards showing the pain disparity but because it is factual and follows the page title of gender bias I don't think that it is a problem at all. The author did a good job of sticking to factual statements an not invoking too much emotion or relying on assumptions. The content isn't persuasive, and the only sentence I think gets a little of the straight track is "She had to wait almost two hours at the emergency room before receiving treatment". While this is still true and important information, it may be better to just reference the article and then move to the statistics about wait time.

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
All of the sources used are up to date and seem reliable. All expect the sources about the media are overviews of medical journals and the media articles are from reputable sources as well.

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 writing is very good, being concise while still thorough. There are no errors and the sections do reflect the points of each paragraph.

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
No images

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
I think that this content will improve the quality of the article and it summarizes an important topic while providing sources for continued research.