User: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.

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".

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?

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 .

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.

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".

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.

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.