User:Noellevo/Asynclitic birth/Jaquimarquezg Peer Review

General info
Reviewing article: Asynclitic birth
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

It was great improvement on the article.

Lead: The lead has been updated to reflex the new content that was added by our peer. The language was very scientific medical terms, it would be useful to have more lay terms. The lead does include a description of the articles major sections. The lead concise, and was not overly detailed.

Content: The content added was all relevant to the article. It was organized in a very clear way that makes sense for the reader to understand. It was very precise and detailed in information given. The content is added up to date, and consists of a lot more new information. I could not think of information that could be added, it answered all my questions as a reader. Our only suggestion would be to simplify some medical terms so people without knowledge of these medical terms can better understand it.

Tone and Balance: The tone was neutral. There were no claims that seemed bias toward a particular position. It was very well written where it was just stating facts, and no language that indicates viewpoints. The content does not try to persuade the reader, instead it is providing information for the reader to learn.

Edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity and inclusion. They avoided using words that can point to a certain group. Instead they used neutral language that was inclusive

Organization: Very well organized the headers and how the material is separated makes sense. We would suggest to please separate into smaller paragraphs because it becomes difficult reading when they are so large.

Images and Media: It would be great if a picture could be added! (if possible)

Overall: Content added improved greatly! They were able to accomplish all of their goals. Their strengths is that it was a very well written, detailed and organized article. An improvement would be to include more lay language. Great job!


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)