User:Meimulee/National Women's Health Network/Egt345 Peer Review

General info
Meimulee, Jamanafort, and Jrsteck27
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead in of the current article seems pretty comprehensive and doesn't need much editing. You could add a sentence about the 12 policy pillars into the lead, since that is something that you are adding to the article, but that is completely optional.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic ?- Yes, the content is very relevant to the topic and I think it will be beneficial for this to be part of the article.

Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes. A lot of the sources used to find this information are sites that are updated regularly.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The paragraphs added to explain certain pillars are very helpful but it might be beneficial to add a description for each of the pillars. You could add how each of the pillars is incorporated into the network. You added a line about how the network is incorporating this value into their work in the Maternal Health pillar and it was very beneficial. Additionally, I think you could specify who these pillars are more inclusive to in the first line.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, the National Women’s Health Network is a stub and nowhere in the article do they discuss the 12 policy pillars.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? - All of the content is neutral but I felt like the line: “Even implicit bias can have a role in hospital settings.” could be clarified a bit more. Maybe adding a link to the implicit bias wikipedia page?

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- I think because the content was overall very neutral, there were no overrepresented viewpoints. Since you guys are just adding on to a stub, obviously I think there are a lot of views/content that can be added, but with this section all this information is very important.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - I thought all of the sources were very credible and every statement had a source to back up the information.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? - Yes, the sources used were from the National Women’s Health Network and other medical journals.

Are the sources current? - Yes, the apple podcasts are very recent.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, the sources were of a wide variety of sites and showcased different perspectives.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - Not necessarily better sources, but if you guys want to provide information about the other pillars, you would need to find other sources for that information.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, because of the numbers I think it is very easy to read.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No grammatical or spelling errors. This is more of a formatting thing, but on some bullet points you use a dash to separate your information and on others you use a colon, so having uniformity across the whole section would make it easier to read.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, it is very well-organized.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - I think this section will improve the quality of the article greatly. It’s an important aspect to the organization. I’ve mentioned this throughout my peer editing, but you could add descriptions to each pillar to add more clarity. Additionally, you could add something about the pillars into the lead of the article.

What are the strengths of the content added? - This content hasn’t been covered at all in the article so it’s awesome you guys are adding it. The writing is super clear and easy to understand. Great job!

Additional Questions

Where do you guys want to add this into the existing wikipedia article? Formatting might be something to consider.

-Emma