User:Rhya Evans/Women's reproductive health in the United States/Mesmith017 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rhya Evans


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * ReedNatalie/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Women's_reproductive_health_in_the_United_States

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The sentence added here provides good context for what this group will be adding

Content

The pieces added to this article are informative and neutral. The PCOS section does a great job of also linking in other relevant wikipedia pages for interested users to be able to do more exploring. If these pages exist, a good addition to the fertility models section would be linking in the pages for the models that are talked about in case readers are having trouble understanding.

Tone and Balance

All assertions are presented with supporting evidence in a non-biased and informative way.

Sources

This group obviously did a lot of research on the topic. There are many sources that each seem to be reputable.

Organization

This group did a particularly good job with the organization of the proposed edits. Each subsection is a very digestible size, providing lots of information without being overwhelmingly long. The sections don't really rely on information from the previous section so the order isn't as important here.

Overall Impressions

I think this group did a great job with this draft. You specifically did well with keeping paragraphs to the point and also informative. I really like that so many links were added in the beginning to other pages and I think that the many sources allowed for many perspectives and experiences to be included.