User:Shamu04/Extended breastfeeding/Greenapplewatermelon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Shamuo4


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shamu04/Extended_breastfeeding?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Extended breastfeeding

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.)

Lead
The lead is concise and the first bullet point summarizes the changes you're seeking. The lead did not reference the different sections of the article.

Content
The content you added is definitely relevant. You start your section with "As recommended by several healthcare organizations" but I don't think this is necessary. With Wikipedia everything is referenced so you don't need to reference it in the article itself. The same can be said for the section of "While many trusted sources such as the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clearly state..." You can just say what they state and reference the article at the end. I'm not positive on this though because the paragraph before your addition contains references like this. I question if the last sentence "While it appears that two years of age is the oldest age at which children and mothers benefit greatly from breastfeeding, it is important to note that there is both a lack of research and a lack of evidence for children beyond the age of two" is necessary, or if its possible to make it more concise. I'm not sure it fits within the wiki article.

Tone and Balance
Your content is well balanced and neutral. This addition is definitely persuasive toward extended breastfeeding but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. You don't say what someone should do, just list the benefits, which is perfect.

Sources and References
The links all appear to be functional. You even included sections on what each reference told you which is very helpful.

Organization
Your content is well-written. I do have some grammatical notes. I love using italics in writing, but I don't think I've read a Wikipedia article that uses one so I'm not sure you should keep the word "and" in italics. You seem to have put a double space in-between every sentence. I also noticed a double space in the sentence using "to when". I think you meant "loose" rather than "lose" in the sentence that follows.

Overall Impressions
These additions have definitely improved the article as a whole. The strength of you addition is that it's very well written and concise. There isn't a sentence that isn't adding to the paragraph (although as I noted, the last one is iffy). Whenever you use a word/phrase that you know is its own Wikipedia article, such as "oxytocin," you should make the word into a link that connects to that page.