User:Meimulee/National Women's Health Network/Dikshas05 Peer Review

General info
Meimulee
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jamanafort

Jrsteck27


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Meimulee/National Women's Health Network
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * National Women's Health Network:
 * National Women's Health Network:

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

From my understanding, the current article on the "National Women's Health Network" does not provide much detail about the organization's current goals and priorities. This groups is adding a section under what I assume is "The Present" section of the article to add more information of the specific pillars of the organization.

No Lead (included in the original article)

Structure


 * I really like how the information is presented in a numbered list. I think that makes the information clear and easy to read, especially if you're looking for a particular topic. Potentially, the labels for each pillar ("Aging Women, Maternal Health, etc) could be bolded or underlined. This change would make it easier to differentiate the labels from the descriptions of them, which makes it more efficient for someone who's quickly skimming the article for information.

Balanced coverage


 * The 3 pillars which the group expanded on seem to be mostly equal in length. The Maternal Health section seems longer, but it also provides more information about other organizations that the National Women's Health Network works with, which the other sections don't do.
 * For consistency, it may be helpful to add the other organizations that TNWHN works with to "Breast Health" and "Mental Health and Wellbeing", if there is information available on those topics.
 * All of the information provided in the article is on topic. The group could look into linking to other Wikipedia articles for the other organizations they mention so people looking to read further on it would have the opportunity.
 * I think this article does a good job providing information that is only factual. I did not find myself being pushed to think in a certain perspective.

Neutral content


 * There were a few phrases that did not feel completely neutral.
 * "Even implicit bias can have a role..." - I think the word "even" gives the sentence a weird tone that doesn't feel completely neutral. I think that word could be omitted so the sentence just reads "Implicit bias can have a role in hospital settings too."
 * I also think the "even more" in the sentence "Since the COVID-19 pandemic,.." sentence could be omitted
 * Otherwise, as mentioned before, the article did a good job providing information that was unbiased and purely factual. Everything was backed up by multiple reliable sources.

Reliable sources


 * Everything mentioned in the article is connected to a reliable source.
 * The article references 17 different sources, which is really good. It shows me that a lot of different sources back up the information I'm reading, and it's not biased to one perspective.
 * From what I can see, there are no unsourced statements in the article!

Overall, I think this article draft is great! There's a lot of helpful information that the original article did not include. All of the content was relevant and informative. My biggest critique would be on sentence structure and comma usage. There were sentences that lacked commas, and some that seemed to run on a little bit. I would suggest reading your article out loud to find areas that may need a comma or a change in structure. Great job guys!

~Diksha