User:Justinlc/Sexism in medicine

General info

I (Fahmida94) am reviewing the article - '''Sexism in medicine? (Changed to : Gender discrimination in the medical profession)''' by Justinlc


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_discrimination_in_the_medical_profession

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 has been updated to the new contents added by my peer. The lead includes brief description of the article’s major edits done by my peer and the leads are found to be concise.

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 added content bear good resemblance to the topic, and it has already been added by my peer.

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 added by my peer has been stated from a neutral point of view. The viewpoints are found to be quite accurate in case of presentation. The addition done by my peer is too short to judge its persuasion mode.

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 addition done by my peer is backed up by secondary sources. The citation has been done from a journal. But it would be better to have additional sources from newspaper and scientific studies.

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 concise and it’s free of grammatical or spelling errors. My peer added to a prior edit made by another student and expanded it to fit Wikipedia criteria. Furthermore, grammatical errors were fixed, reference links were added and ‘See also’ section was also integrated. The main article is very well organized and properly segmented.

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

N/A. My peer didn’t add any new images to the existing article.

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

N/A. This is not a new article.

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 fell this is a real value addition to improve the quality of the article. My peer has given generous effort to find out ways the article could be improved. Continuous improvement will enhance the article in an even better way.