User:Millerbj1837/Maternal Mortality/NB4897 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? (provide username)
 * I am reviewing Millerbj1837's proposed changes to the Maternal Mortality article.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Millerbj1837/Maternal Mortality
 * User talk:Millerbj1837/Maternal Mortality

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?

The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content and the new changes to the article do not necessarily call for changes to the Lead. The introductory sentence is concise and also broad enough to cover the article's topic. The Lead could use more description about the article's major sections, but does not include information that is not present in the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content added is relevant to the topic of maternal death and adds to the epidemiology section of the article. The first two sources added are up-to-date, but the third is not. However, the information from this third source is necessary to have to add important information to the article. The article does address racial disparities.

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?

The content added is not neutral in that it sides towards the issue be preventable. Most claims do not appear to be heavily biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented. If the author were to keep the sentence about the issue being preventable, they should also address the issues that could come with prevention such as cost and access to medical care. The content does somewhat attempt to persuade that the issue would be an easily preventable issue.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The content added is not from secondary sources. The sources appear to be reliable, but are primary sources not systematic analysis or literature reviews. The sources are thorough and current. All links work.

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?

The content added is very well-written. It is clear and concise. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I could find. The content is not separated into sections between information pertaining to the United States and worldwide.

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?

The content added improves the epidemiology section quality as that information is limited. The strengths include adding more detailed information about the United States. The content could be improved by using secondary sources and adding section headers to break up the information.