User:KClaudio/Prenatal testing/Holdenhansli 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? KClaudio
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KClaudio/Prenatal testing and rest of article she hasn't edited yet

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 is already good. It gives an overview of conditions that prenatal testing can detect, examples of what prenatal testing involves, and the reasons that prenatal testing can help a pregnancy.

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 content seems up-to-date and relevant. It seems like there is enough information, but some of it needs to be reworded because it's too technical or confusing. There is an entire section (Third trimester) that's empty, so that needs to be added to.

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 seems to be balanced and explains that prenatal testing is helpful for those who would choose abortion after getting specific diagnoses and those who would choose to continue the pregnancy because the doctors and the family can be better prepared by knowing what the baby would have.

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
Her edits and the article as a whole seems to be well-cited. The links that I tested were working. Some more current references and secondary sources need to be added.

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 organization is really good. I like the way the subsections are and how the article utilizes bullet point lists, tables, as well as normal text. There are a few subsections that could use more information (there's one that's completely empty).

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
There are no images so Karla could add some.

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, most of the article is really good, but there is a section completely missing. I really like how simple and informative the test by invasiveness table is. Karla could add pictures, reword some sections, and more recent citations.