User:Tooba99/Abortion in Uganda/Alostrom Peer Review

Peer review
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? Tooba99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tooba99/Abortion in Uganda

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead provides a solid overview of the article. The introductory sentence could be rephrased to be more clear and concise. Additionally, the second section in the Lead could be elaborated on to specify some of the main barriers that women face, including lack of access to contraception. Overall, the lead is not overly detailed and provides a good summary of the article's main points.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and up-to-date. For the Legal Status of Abortion section, I would recommend using the same format when citing the law for both the introductory sentence on Article 22 of the Ugandan Constitution and Section 141 of the Penal Code.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral and the article explores the opposing viewpoints on the issue in the last section. Within the Government family planning section, the first two sentences read more like an introduction to an argument than a summation of facts, so I would rewrite these sentences to be more neutral. Specifically, the sentence "Unintended pregnancy is the reason that most women in Uganda seek abortions" could be edited to say "Unintended pregnancy is the most common reason that women in Uganda seek abortions."

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem reliable and current. There was a good balance of academic and government sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organization of the content makes sense. It might be helpful to add a section expanding on the current statistics on access and use of abortion services mentioned in the Lead. This would be beneficial to include right before the Post-abortion care section. Overall, the sentences are nicely structured and the article is easy to read.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not include any images; however, I am unsure how relevant any images and media would be to this particular topic, so I do not think it is needed.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article appears to cover the main aspects of Abortion in Uganda and provides a clear, concise, and neutral overview on the topic.