User:Suz.CSUF/Reproductive health care for incarcerated women in the United States/Juliannamurga Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Suz.CSUF


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Suz.CSUF/Reproductive health care for incarcerated women in the United States


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Reproductive health care for incarcerated women in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here is my review for you!


 * 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? Yes, the write provides an introduction that lets me know that the topic they will be talking about is on contraceptives and also the problem with this for incarcerated women.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the articles major sections? Yes, they briefly describe the issue they will be talking about in the introduction and give us statistics as well to prove so.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The article talks about the lack or health care provided for women that are incarcerated, abortions etc. But never does it cover contraceptives given to women that are in jail. So they did a good job adding this bit of information in.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is straight to the point and is not wordy.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is as it adds information about the reality of how health care is handled for women that are incarcerated/
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is, the information they looked for is recently new.
 * is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think everything looks good, I feel as though when referencing about the different jails that do certain things than others, you can be more specific about that?
 * Does the article deal with one of wikipedias equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.
 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is mostly generalized in a way that is giving information to you as background knowledge, so there are no way you can choose some sort of side. The topic is talking about incarcerated women, so I think this is a topic not many would really talk about.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims being made here and I think this is nothing but pure facts about the matter.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position away from another? No it does not. The information given is simply letting us know about an important matter that not many are talking about.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the information they are getting is from books that are written by authors with years of experience studying in the field.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are fairly recent atleast 5 years or so.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? There are only two sources, but they are different, so yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? I believe the sources they chose were simple and provide a lot of information about both contraceptives and incarceration.
 * Check a few links, do they work? No they do not. For the references part they do not, so they need to cite them correctly.
 * Is the content added well-written? Is it concise, clear and easy to read? Very easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling work? I believe some sentences could be framed more professionally because some of the sentences are simple. Maybe choose different words.
 * Is the content added well-organized, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? Is the article more complete? The information the write chose to add is very important and emphasizes more on why women that are in these jails need proper care and more assistance when it comes to their reproductive health.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think everything looks simple and straight forward.
 * How can the content added be improved? Choosing different vocabulary when talking about your topic, add a bit more information on which jails do certain things and if it isn't all jails, why dont they do so? Maybe mention bills that have been passed or laws that prevent this sort of health care or help women with these issues. Also if you have references, you should have them marked on your paragraph. You need to properly cite them in the paragraph so if someone clicks on the source, it will take them to that certain paragraph and see where the information is at.