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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Meimulee
 * 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
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) 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
(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.)

'''What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

The article does well in shedding light about research that needs to be done by the NWHN. However, I would suggest the author include the how NWHN is tackling on these issues. Reiterating that NWHN is increasing research or simply trying to implement new policies doesn't satisfy the reader. As a reader, I seek the need to know what actionable objectives NWHN is taking as an approach towards combating the exclusivity of Women. However, I noticed that my peer's article happens to maintain similar themes of mental health and inclusivity, as my group's article. Overall, the content seems to be written very well and I believe the most important thing the author could improve to the article is working on achieving a clear structure.

Lead

The lead seems to not have been updated by my peer.

A clear structure

I am not exactly sure what intention went into the organizing of the article. I can't draw out if the author intended to jot down all 12 policy pillars of NWHN and from there, add more content to whichever pillar deemed most fitting. Or if the author had broken down the article desired to edit into these 12 different sections.

Balanced coverage

Each section length seems to be as equal to its importance in regard to the article's subject. I don't see any unnecessary content that goes off-topic. The article contributes to the reflecting of all perspectives, yet the article doesn't try to convince the reader to accept a particular point of view or perspective.

Neutral content

I've noticed that the article in the second bullet point uses the word 'All' frequently, for example, "The Network is also building on past work through their "Raising Women's Voices" program which fundraises for assistance to all maternal health groups all across America[7]." The article feels like it focuses more on negative information than positive. The article happens to showcase more about what is needed to be done rather than what has done and the progression of NWHN in certain sections.

Reliable sources

The article seems to be using multiple sources throughout which contributes to the balance of the article. Some of the sources appear to be podcasts, but majority come from libraries and foundations. Overall, the article seems to be using reliable sources.