User:Visook/Reproductive justice/McEngl491 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? Visook
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Reproductive justice

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 was not updated. The current intro provides a through history, however it does not define key terms or provide an outline of the whole article. It could provide more of an outline of the article and introduce some current events/concerns related to the subjects.

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
I like that you added the Periods for Pence movement to the article; adding this helped update the article and keep it relevant. I think the explanation of Periods for Pence that you put in the "issues" sections might work better in the "redefining reproductive rights" because this is a current way people are fighting for reproductive rights. Additionally, I liked that you added the digital spaces section to the "issues." I think this is where you could expand on how women are discriminated against in digital spaces regarding reproductive rights. Overall, I think the information you have added is important and appropriate.

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
Your tone is neutral and does not appear biased. It could be interesting to expand on the political views surrounding reproductive rights. it might be good for readers to understand the main viewpoints on the issue.

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 work and are current.

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
As I said above, I think you could switch the location of the paragraphs you added. Other than those two paragraphs, I think everything else is organized well and the writing is strong/clear. I like the Digital Rhetoric section that you added. I think it makes the article more relevant.

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
Did not add any images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article.

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 content added does a great job of updating the article and making it more relevant. You also related your content to the class which is important. For the future, it could be a good idea to remove some old information and/or add more current events related to the topic.