User:Plaidandwool/Surrogacy in Canada/PistachioCroissant Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Plaidandwool

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Plaidandwool/Surrogacy in Canada

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Surrogacy in Canada

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I appreciate the rewrite of the lead section, though I think the last two sentences read like an essay instead of an encyclopedia. Perhaps reorganizing it will make it flow better with the top half of the lead. But overall, it is a great introductory paragraph, covering many topics that you further discuss throughout the page.

In the first paragraph, you say “Meaning”, then reiterate what you say in the line before. I am not sure if this is necessary, perhaps omit it or add it in to the phrase above instead of making it two sentences.  

Content

In legal restrictions, you say “It also outlaws commercial "intermediaries"” who are the intermediaries? Is it necessary to have it in quotation marks? I’m not sure if outlaws is the proper term for this context.

You also say:

“for lost wages; However,”

In this case if you are not starting a new sentence the H should not be capitalized.

Later, you say, “Receipts must generally back reimbursements” Generally as in not always? What are some cases that receipts won’t be needed for reimbursements? Why?

You say “Provincial and territorial laws determine surrogacy contract validity and parental rights” when its already said in the lead, and in the description of provincial and territorial laws overview header.

I also wonder if this example is necessary in the wiki page, I am not sure if its significant enough to put here, unless you will be following up on all cases in the future. “As of 2018, there has only been one conviction under the Act: a 2014 case in which an Ontario company, Canadian Fertility Consultants, was fined $60,000 for purchasing eggs and paying surrogates.”

In the description of provincial and territorial laws overview, I think the two sentences are a bit repetitive and maybe you can rewrite it to make it clear in one sentence. It also made me think of the section in the Lead, where you say “The validity of surrogacy contracts and the process for establishing the child's parentage is governed by provincial and territorial laws. Meaning that surrogacy can look different depending on the province or territory.” It again, also comes up in the Legal Restrictions (as mentioned above). I wonder if it’s necessary to emphasize it in all three paragraphs. Maybe just keep it in the lead and then a second paragraph of your choice, either the Legal Restrictions or Provincial and Territorial Laws Overview.

Under British-Columbia you say “they can go through a statutory declaration, which is an administrative process” I don’t think it’s necessary to emphasize that it’s an administrative process. But if you want to include it maybe re-write it as “they can go through the administrative process of a statutory declaration” ?

Manitoba and New Brunswick

“but in New Brunswick, if neither parent has a genetic link with the child, they will have to adopt the child” who is they in this case? The surrogate? Maybe I am not understanding this correctly.

Prince Edward Island

You write: As of March 2021. an administrative process

This period should be a comma.

“However, the surrogate will initially appear on the birth certificate. A court order is required for the surrogate to be removed from the birth certificate.”

I think you can remove the However, and maybe write these two sentences together.  

Quebec

You wrote “In Quebec, birth certificates can list the surrogate and the intended father (if there is one), only the surrogate or only the intended father (if there is one).” Is it only the surrogate or only the intended father (if there is one) or and?

Saskatchewan

You wrote “surrogacy agreement (contract) are required.” Is it necessary to say both agreement and contract? What is the difference in this case?

I really appreciated the Critics section, I found it very informative, and it makes me think more about the topic of surrogacy in general.

Tone and Balance

I think the tone you used when writing this page is neutral. I do think some sections could be formulated in other ways to appear less repetitive and more intentional.  

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. I think you did a great job to be very inclusive throughout the page.

Sources and References

Your sources are thorough and vary (from news articles to official Canadian policy websites), which shows your extensive research and helps the Wikipedia page appear balanced, by not sounding too “official”. This can be hard when talking about laws and government.

I checked all your reference links and they all work. One of them you need a subscription to access it, not sure how this affects the type of source.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-canada-became-an-international-surrogacy-destination/

Organization

The content that you added is clear and easy to read. Though there are some things that you should read over and perhaps change, as mentioned in the content section above.

Your addition and reorganization of headings and subleaders make your page flow well for readers without getting overwhelmed.

Though I suggest you change the last section “Critics” to “Critiques”.

As critique is a verb/noun referring to evaluating and identifying positive and negative points and a critic is a person who judges or evaluates, and sometimes a person who only finds negative points (Oliveira, 2023). Since you are not directly reffering to specific individuals but ways of thinking, I think Critiques makes more sense.

Oliveira, S. (2023, October 18). Criticize, criticism, critique, critic, or critical? Espresso English. https://www.espressoenglish.net/difference-between-criticize-criticism-critique-critic-and-critical/

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? Yes, details of provincial and territorial laws have been significantly updated and the page reads quite well.

I think the addition to the Canadian government’s “prohibitions related to surrogacy” external link is relevant in relation to the details that you added throughout the page.

Overall, I think that you significantly added to an important Canadian page and the only details that need to be fixed are minor.

You did a great job!