User:Sedersta/Menstrual cup/Ellis414 Peer Review

Peer review
Hi Sedersta, I really appreciate that you chose Menstrual Cups as a topic and found some really good articles providing history and pertinent medical information. I suggested a couple small edits to make your History section a bit clearer, but I think you did really great work that is a good addition to a very controversial article with a really lengthy Talk page. Great job!.

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? Sedersta
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sedersta/Menstrual cup

Lead
Guiding questions: N/A


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think adding information about the catamenial sacks is a good history point, but I think it should be pointed out that they were not produced for the market, and it wasn't until Leona Chalmers made her patent in the 1930s that menstrual cups were available.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, but I think the link to the patent is unnecessary, because it is explained more clearly in the article link provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? "A vaginal device developed for the purposes of not only the collection of menstrual blood." should be combined into another sentence because it's not a complete thought. I think it could be combined with a comma in the first sentence in the History section.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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?