User:Studentdocvik/Vacuum aspiration/ChefJeffLi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Studentdocvik


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * N/A
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vacuum aspiration
 * Vacuum aspiration

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content added is relevant to the topic, neutral, and mostly up-to-date. It is well-written, concise, and easy to read with no grammatical errors. A commonly used source in this article is from a source from 2001 (Baird), as well as one from 1994 (Mahomed, K.). Content does not directly deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but hints at topics that may address historically underrepresented populations (ex: areas with no/less medication abortion).

The lead has been updated to include some of the new information that was added. As the content she added was to further delve into information already present, the lead had less of a change. It is a good introductory sentence that describes the article's topics and major sections.

All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, most of which is current and up-to-date. The sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors. The links all work.

Content has made the article more complete. I believe the only improvement that could be made would be to find more current and up-to-date sources to replace/add on to the content that is being referenced (> 15 years old).