User:Paola m. vázquez/Hand surgery/Keniett J. Vazquez 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?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
I am reviewing the work of: User:Paola m. vázquez

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Paola m. vázquez/Hand surgery

Lead evaluation
The lead of the article contains an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the subject of the article. The information is quite well developed and located in their respective sections. Several different medical terms are mentioned (closely related to the main topic) and these are correctly linked to other articles, which facilitates the understanding of the topic.

Content evaluation
The added content belongs to and is relevant to the main topic of the article, but it is not properly updated like most of the references added by other people, which reduces some of the reliability of the information. The content of the article does not address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and balance evaluation
The added content is written neutrally. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. I consider that the article is well developed based on the themes and sub-themes found in it, there are no over-represented or under-represented points of view.

Sources and references evaluation
It could not allow me to enter one of the links of the new content, this is supported by a secondary source of information, but I could not corroborate if this is reliable (reference 3). On the other hand, the other sources do reflect the available literature on the subject, although, as I mentioned in a previous evaluation, most of the references are outdated. Regarding the links, almost all of them work correctly, except for reference number 3. I could also notice that there are references previously added by other people that are directed to other Wikipedia articles, I understand that this cannot be classified as trustworthy.

Organization evaluation
The added content is well written, concise, clear, easy to read, and is located correctly in its respective area, in this case mainly in the introductory paragraph. Also, corroborating some arrangements made in grammar and spelling of the article, they seem to me to be well done.

Images and media evaluation
The article does not have images, which could provide a greater understanding of the subject presented, I believe that they should be added, complying with the policy on copyright established in Wikipedia.

Overall evaluation
For the general impression, the article is well structured and organized, everything in its respective section and the information added if it is corroborated is effectively directed to the subject. The grammar arrangements seemed well done.