User:Paola.vega12/Gynecologist/Ivanaliztorresm 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? (provide username): I am reviewing Paola.vega12 article.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Paola.vega12/Gynecologist

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the new content of my peer's article has been updated and the new content can be reflected.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does include an introductory sentence that is very concise and clearly and it does describes the article's topic very precisely.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, but it counts with a content of the topics that are present in the article for more organization and easily leading about what is going to be presenting.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything written in the lead is well presented throughout the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and very limited to the article's topic.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is very specifically and is very much relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content missing and there is no content that does not belong to article, on the contrary, the content added may be very helpful for the reader's eyes.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content added is very neutral and t is widespread written.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no claims that appears heavily biased towards a particular position, everything is very balanced and it is very generalized.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is no in between, the article has concise and precise information that will be helpful for the reader and the viewpoints are well presented have each one has the information needed, considering the topic.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added does not try to persuade and it does not take a position or another. On a personal note it is well developed and written.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All content added is reliable by a secondary source of information.
• Are the sources current? The sources added are current and reliable.
• Check a few links. Do they work? The links work and can be clicked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well-written, organized, concise and very clear and easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content added does not 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, the content added is well-organized and it broken down into sections that reflects 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? The article does include a chart for a more specific and unde information about a section that was edited.

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? The artcile is supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It is not exhaustive and it is well-organized, it will be easy for the reader to read the list of source.
• 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? It does include a section where you can see all the external sites and a see also section for the reader's interest.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article counts with a link of other articles.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? In a personal note, the article is more complete and has a good quality of information added, which it can be very interesting for readers.