User:Jnk03/Gender bias in medical diagnosis/Ruthieod 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
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:An739/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, it is concise.

Lead evaluation
Introductory sentence is present! From the sentence I know what the topic is about

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
I believe the content added will be relevant to the edited section

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is factual and neutral, presented in an unbiased manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is factual information presented in a neutral way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
as of now, tone appears to be neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the content added is backed up by sources and citations are provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough. There are a variety of types of sources as well.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of the links work

Sources and references evaluation
citations done correctly and links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content added is well-organized and cohesive.

Organization evaluation
yes, content added is well written with no grammatical errors

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Images and media evaluation
no image

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?

New Article Evaluation
does not appear to be new

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the information added has enhanced the content of the article through incorporating reliable, factual information that adds to the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is well written, cohesive, organized and adds new dimensions to the article that were not previously addressed.
 * How can the content added be improved? n/a

Overall evaluation
From what you have written and your idea on the wiki google doc, I think this will be an interesting edit. As you said, you are still in the brainstorming phase but everything so far looks good. Maybe adding a photo/image with relevant statical information? Could be a nice way to break up the text.

The content added is necessary information to consider for the topic and adds to the quality of the article. Each sentence is cited and information is presented in a neutral, unbiased way.