User:Rfortney/sandbox

=Peer Review Draft=

Overall, I believe the group improved the quality and content of this article. The flow of information is organized, and the sections included are expanded upon nicely. All of the information included in the article has a citation, so this legitimizes the article much more. The articles added are secondary reviews, with many of them from scientific medical journals, making them good sources for citations. I believe the introduction gives a clear and concise look into the remaining information in the article.

The article keeps a neutral tone, and the language is consistent with guidelines. The neutral tone can be confirmed through not favoring the outcomes of a particular gender, and presenting the findings of each review with no opinion.

As for improvement, there is a repetition within the article for the mention of women having two X chromosomes as a biological factor for the paradox that I do not see as a necessary repeat, but that is open for interpretation. The first claim in "potential bias" is based on an author manuscript and source that requires institution access, so this could be an area of potential improvement as well.