User:Alejandra Navarro Rosado/Obstetrics/Carla R2D2 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 Alejandra Navarro Rosado work.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Obstetrics

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it is not included. Maybe she will edit it later.
• 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? The lead does includes all the brief information that will be presented in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation

The lead is not included in my peers sandbox draft, but I searched for the original article's lead and I think it needs a wide description to describe the major sections that will be developed under. It is very concise and maybe needs more detail because the table of contents is very extensive. But I also observed that the lead has a lot of links to facilitate the reader useful information to understand the topic.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing is missing or in red, all seems to belong in the content.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it does not has equity gaps.

Content evaluation

There is a lot of information in this article, therefore it needs a lot of attention. The content is relevant to the topic, and it was last edited on October 19, 2020. More about the content, I think it needs more citations, because there is a lot if interesting information that the readers need to know where did it came from and if its reliable. The links of the draft doesn't appear to be missing (or in red), and talking about them, the content is almost full of links. But in the original article there is one link that doesn't exist in the fetal assessment part (mean gestational sac diameter).

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Maybe, not sure because it is not specified with references, links or citations.
• 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

The tone doesn´t appear biased toward a particular position, but I think it does has opinions (because it doesn't has citations or references). Most doctors do a sugar load in a drink form of 50 grams of glucose in cola, ... another other example: is the biophysical profiles (BPP), which are generally easier to detect in the second trimester. Non of these sentences are cited or explains who thinks or said this; the neutrality might be compromised. Something I noticed is that in the original article there are no citations in the paragraph, meanwhile in the draft that my peer created, she added more information and cited.

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? I looked for the three references and they all work, seems to be reliable, and one of them is a book.
• Are the sources current? Yes, even if is 2000's, it is kind of current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are a lot of authors in a reference.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked a lot of them and they do work.

Sources and references evaluation

The sources and references are kind of recent (2000, 2004, 2008), and the few links I checked worked and most of them where last edited two or three months ago. Also, the sources written has a diverse spectrum of authors. One of the references was a publication from the University of Eastern Finland (2000), this is one is from the "oldest" references. There is another one that refers to a book (N Burrow, G. (2004) and the last one is from an online library AASLD (Hay, J. E. (2008). The sources are good but the article needs more references, because like I said, there is a lot of important information that can't come from few sources. Adding more sources to stabilize the others, will make the article the most current possible.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Concise: maybe Clear and easy to read: Not sure
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, it did.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I consider the organization is well done.

Organization evaluation

The content does have grammatical and spelling errors from nouns, punctuation, and it is hard to read. It can be confusing for those readers who doesn't know much about the topic (to help the article about this, it could be used Grammarly to have an idea of how it can look). However, my peer added more information to organize the ideas better. For me the organization is great because it talks about the process during pregnancy (first, second and third trimester). When all the information is complete, it will end looking great.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? YES
• Are images well-captioned? Well the images are from scans and ultrasonography, so the images are not going to be perfectly clear.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The photos that the last editor had are a public domain and adhere to the copyright regulations.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

I am a fan of images for understanding a topic. My peer didn't added more images or media, because the other editor already added some, but it would be great to add more photos (following the copyright regulations). Maybe some actual photos from the public domain to give it a fresh look.

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?

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

My peer, Alejandra Navarro, is improving the article by sections (because it is very long). The first section I could see she is drafting is good and if she continues the rhythm, it will be done by the deadline. About the article itself, the content added gives the article more sustainability and it can help the reader to be clear about the topic. It does need some grammar check, but more importantly is to concentrate in searching the citations and references. I consider that it will help a lot the article to be more complete. Overall, it is a good job in process.