User:Jsinghal/Complications of pregnancy/Kak3456 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

@Jsinghal

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jsinghal/Complications of pregnancy
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Complications of pregnancy

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi Jsinghal! Here's my peer review for you.

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No not yet. I'd like to see an update to the Lead with a brief description of the article's major sections since it has been reorganized. Otherwise, the Lead is good as it stands - clear and concise without any information that is not in the article.

Content

Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the content that has been added by user:Jsinghal is fairly new. There are some older pre-2010 articles that may need to be refreshed or just removed from the original article, but I assume that will be a future editor's task.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'd also like to see an update of the info box as well. You added a lot of content and it would be nice to have a more robust info box at the top of the page.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? Yes.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. The sources added are all from reputable sources and journals. As I mentioned above, they are also mostly current. Subheading Peripartum cardiomyopathy is really thorough and well written but there's only one source cited? It might be worth adding different references even though all the information might be covered by one source.
Check a few links. Do they work? Links work.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't see any during my read-through.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes I am a big fan of the sections organized by fetal and maternal problems. Very easy to follow.

Overall Impressions

I thought that the article as a whole is written well and organized well. I'm a little bit confused by some of the subheadings having Caused by and Treatment bullets and not others. It would be nice have more consistency throughout the article (either having them or not - either is fine).
There's always a little more room for improvement - some of the subheadings don't have much information under them (i.e. placenta previa and accreta).
Overall the article is definitely more robust and better organized than it was before. You've made really good progress on it so far! Excellent work!

- Kak3456