User:NoahJDerrick/Birthing center/Laurob04 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? The article was last updated April 16, 2020 so I am reviewing the original Wikipedia article as it exists with a 3.26 Predicted ORES score.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Birthing center

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead section has not been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the Lead includes an introductory sentence describing the article's topic, however, it could be copyedited to make the sentence more concise and easier to read.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? While the Lead section broadly covers a lot of information about birthing centers, it does not specifically mention birthing centers in the US, Australia, the Netherlands, or Canada, nor Amish birthing centers. An improvement could be a statement that birthing centers are found globally and across different communities, such as the Amish. This would mention the other sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead expands on information about what makes birthing centers more "home-like", but this expansion is not present in the section comparing birthing centers births to hospital births.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is overly detailed, a lot of the information provided in the Lead, such as active labor being encouraged and what makes the birthing center "home-like", should be in the major section comparing birthing center births to hospital births instead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content added is all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The oldest source is from 2002, so yes the information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I am unsure how much information there is on birthing centers in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands but there is certainly an imbalance because the article has a lot more information on birthing centers in the US, which are not more important to the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Since the article discusses labor and delivery and also hints at prenatal care, this topic is related to cis women and others who can give birth, though specifically focusing on cis women. Therefore, this does relate to a historically underrepresented population or topic since women's health does not get enough attention as men's.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No the claims do not appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article mainly focuses on the benefits of birthing centers, so this could be overrepresented. However, the claims that birthing centers are beginning to be preferred was based off of research claims and they did mention the limitations of birthing centers. I think it could be helpful to include any research advising against birthing centers, if there is any.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a particular position, however, since a majority of the sources are in favor of birthing centers the content generally does favor birthing centers and this may persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I am unsure of new content but not all content in the article is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. For example in the section on Birthing Centers in the US, there is not a source supporting that midwives might provide prenatal care and there is no citation for any information on CABC, which is a large component of this major section. There is also no references for the information on birthing centers in Australia and Canada.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources provided give thorough overviews of topics and more information could be pulled from them, for example the source on birthing centers in the Netherlands. However, there are only 8 sources so there likely is a lot more available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current, the oldest one is from 2002 which is still relatively recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? At least three sources include women authors or are exclusively written by one woman author, which means they do include historically marginalized individuals where possible. The authors still may be primarily white, however, since the author of one article was a white woman.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All except the first link works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is generally well-written, however, there definitely could be improvements on sentence structure and overall grammar to make it more clear and easier to read. This is especially true in the Lead section and the section on birthing centers in Canada.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some grammatical errors in the Lead section and bad sentence structure throughout.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is well-organized but the content in each is imbalanced, there is much more content for the US birthing centers.

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?

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?

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
~ Laurob04