User:KClaudio/Prenatal testing/Ryleatrudeau 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

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
My peer has not yet added directly to the article, but the lead of the article appears to be very inclusive of the most important topics that are covered throughout the article. I don't necessarily think that anything will need to be added to the lead once she adds the edits that are already in her sandbox, as they are more of a specific extension of a topic rather than something that needs to be covered as an immediate introduction to the topic. The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. I do not think that the lead needs to be edited. Yes, the lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is very detailed in introducing the different things that pre-natal testing can test for, but I do not necessarily think that this is a bad thing due to the fact that describing the various purposes is important in giving people the gist of the importance of prenatal testing and allowing them to understand why it exists.

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 that is currently a part of the article is relevant and very detailed. The majority of it appears to be cited, and I did not notice any biases throughout the article. Everything appeared to be presented from a neutral point of view. My peer's edits, so far, also appear to be relevant to the topic at hand and are riddled with citations - a good thing, because it would be harder to backtrack and add citations in later. I believe that so far, the edits made to this article are beneficial and I look forward to seeing what other edits are going to be made to the article.

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 is neutral in its tone and has reliable citations. Nothing appears to be biased towards a particular position, and if anything, my peer appears to have made a correctional edit to the article that was originally published (her edit, which has citations. states something differently than what was originally published). While there are not any claims that appear heavily biased towards a certain position, I do believe that the article as a whole is somewhat skewed towards laying out the importance/benefits of prenatal testing. The "Concerns for disability rights activists and scholars" section is good in describing the gist of the problem that prenatal testing poses for this group of people, but it might be beneficial to expand more on the topic so that the article does not seem more biased in proving that it is a good thing.

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
From my review, most of the content appears to be backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Many of the claims in the article that do not have a source are indicated by a "citation needed" tag which has already been added. I did notice that the "False positives and false negatives" section of the article maintains a rather large block of text that has been broken up by very few citations, so it could likely be revisited and backed with citations. After reviewing the list of sources at the bottom of the article, it appears that they are current. Links that were checked in the article also were in working order.

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
So far, the content that my peer has added is grammatically correct and fits well into the pieces of the article surrounding it. As previously stated, her main contribution was to correct an incorrect statement that was previously published in the article - so this did not need to be broken down into its own sections quite yet. When she does eventually add more to the topic, I imagine that it will be convenient to break it into sections because the majority of the talking points for pre-natal testing appear to already be there - they just need to be added to, or helped with citations.

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
My peer did not yet add any images or media to the article. After viewing it, though, I do think that it could use some images to help guide readers in understanding the ideas that are presented throughout.

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; my peer's article was pre-existing.

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
Considering the fact that the information in the article was blatantly incorrect prior to my peer's edits, I would say that the content she added did improve the overall quality of the article. The strengths of her content include that it is backed up by reliable sources and that it will assist people in having a better understanding about pre-natal testing, rather than being misled into "understanding" something that is not true. The only improvement that I can think of to improve the bit that she has added so far would be expansion - to include more information to this section of the article - however, I do not necessarily think that is necessary and there are certainly more areas throughout the article that I am sure she plans to edit later on.