This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
• Link to draft you're reviewing:

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, but a bit too concise
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • no its all mentioned later
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise

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?
  • Can add information about the 1920 decree on abortion under the abortion section to make the information more full. Could also find more information about how the outreach occurred to women in rural areas through events and speeches
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • yes the article about the Zhenotdel was very weak before

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content itself is neutral but some of the comments like "unfortunately" and "sadly" because it seems to become argumentative
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Maybe find some information about how women in the country received the efforts of the Zhenotdel would help give a more clear image
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes the organization is well done and by including sections on the major efforts of the Zhenotdel it helps the readers understand more fully what they were trying to do
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

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?

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?

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes!
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Information about the major efforts the organization tried to accomplish
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Removing leading/emotion based phrases like "unfortunately"