User talk:Erica-Schroeder/Estrogen patch/Erinelizabethjones 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? Erica-Schroeder Link to draft you're reviewing: Estrogen patch Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is the same, however it still reflects the contents of the article. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The first sentenced is a bit long, and not concise. Could be re-worked. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Should be more concise. Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Could expand under "Medical uses" to the headings, "hypoestrogenism" and "prevention of osteoporosis". Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes. 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 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? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well-written. 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? Yes. Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I would add more pictures to enhance your article. Are images well-captioned? Add a caption to the image, and/or replace it with a better picture that accurately reflects the article topic. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I liked the graphs under the heading, "Estrogen levels". Images and media evaluation 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? Yes. 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? Yes, it links several other wiki pages throughout the article. New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? A few sections were enhanced, more work to do in other sections. What are the strengths of the content added? The "menopause" section has a good lead. Under "patches with progestogens", maybe change the sentence "it is often recommended", or just justify this by saying who recommends this. How can the content added be improved? Overall evaluation

Overall, you added some valuable information with credible sources. My suggestions are to re-work the lead to be more concise, it's a bit of a run-on sentence. Add a different image and/or caption the image that you do have, and fill out the other sections such as "Outcomes", "Side effects", "Precautions", "Formulations", etc. Great framework.

Just finished your peer review. ErinelizabethjonesErinelizabethjones (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)