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

[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

IssaEm

Link to draft you're reviewing: Editing User:IssaEm/Pelvic inflammatory disease - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Pelvic inflammatory disease - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]

Epidemiology

[edit]

Prevalence/Incidence

[edit]

I think you should clarify what "discharges" means (in your first bullet point). Is this hospital discharges?
I really like the stats that you use on the "records show that..." bullet points, but I think they all need citations. Are they all from the same source/the citation on the last bullet point?
You say that there are indications PID rates are decreasing, do you have any statistics to prove that? Update - I kept reading and found your sources/stats so that's great! I do think that these the statement about rates decreasing should be directly before/after the statistics.
I noticed the current published article has more sources/information about the correlation between PID & gonorrhea and chlamydia, I think that is valuable to keep in your edits because it helps explain your statement about testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia to decrease PID prevalence.
"Two nationally representative probability surveys referenced are the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) surveyed women aged 18 to 44 from 2013 to 2014.[1]" this phrasing is a little clunky. I would recommend having the surveys be mentioned/cited more subtly instead of explicitly saying they are references. Ex. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) surveyed women aged 18 to 44 from 2013 to 2014 and found that...

Population at risk

[edit]

Really good clear, concise information in this section!
Do you have any sources for this portion?

Prevention

[edit]

One of your bullet points is "reducing number of sexual partners" and the next one says "being in a mutually monogamous relationship rather than having multiple sexual partners" which is repetitive. I would combine them in to one.

Treatment

[edit]

"There is a small chance PID may "disappear" or spontaneously resolve itself.^[1]" This is really interesting, and I would add a sentence or two to expand on this.
There are a few places with extra commas.

Really great job! I think this is a really important topic to educate others about, especially because early diagnosis is critical, I think this article could help lots of people.

^ Ross, Johnathan (12/11/2013). "Pelvic Inflammatory Disease". National Library of Medicine; PubMed Central. Retrieved 11/15/2023. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)