User:Rbwood/Tropical disease/Krishgopalan Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Rbwood
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Tropical disease
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]I think it would be helpful to include a few sentences introducing the topic a little bit more. But since the information is already concise, it shouldn't matter too much.
Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is direct and concise, which is appreciated. The section on vector-borne diseases is well-organized and written. The lead was quite helpful in putting the bullet points into context.
In the Sexually transmitted diseases section, it might be helpful to add some more detail. Introducing a lead would be help contextualize the information a little bit more. Furthermore, adding some bullet points, similar to the vector-borne diseases section, would add some valuable information. At present, it seems like a stub compared to the other sections.
Overall, the reorganization really helped strengthen the article. Adding a little bit more detail would be ideal though.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone of the article overall was balanced and neutral. It would be helpful to develop the other sections as much as the vector-borne diseases section.
Sources and References
[edit]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?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]In terms of sources, there were a few sentences and points that did not have citations. The citation list only had one source, which was odd. Then again, the original article did not have many sources cited in general for that section. It would be helpful to introduce more sources in order to validate the information.
Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]I really appreciated the organization of the article. It helped establish a clear focus for the topic, which was especially lacking in the original. It might be helpful to change from the bullet-point structure that was preserved in the vector borne diseases section, but overall there was a very clear organizational structure.
Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]N/A
For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]Overall, the article has already been vastly improved over its start. Much of the clarity comes from the reorganization. The strongest section of the article, in its present form, is the vector borne illnesses section. If the other sections could include more information, so as to mirror that, it would strengthen the article. At some places, the bullet points may need more explanation. Also, there are a few places without citations, which are hard to ignore. Otherwise, the article is pretty strong. Just a few changes and you're set. :)