User:ARH125/Paleopathology/Bet9 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? ARH125
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Paleopathology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead successfully reflects the content, but it does not appear to have been edited (yet) by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead's introductory sentence is concise and describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the lead is brief and highlights the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead mentions non-avian dinosaurs and Cenozoic mammals but does not expand on those topics later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but if more information is added to the content, then more information can be added to the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic of paleopathology.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is decently up to date, but it could be further updated, especially considering that many of the references are from recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There may be some content missing, but there is nothing that does not belong. I am unsure about missing content because I am unfamiliar with the subject of paleopathology.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I believe the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This claim could present bias: "There is however, more archaeological evidence for the disease in the Americas than there is for the disease in Europe at the time of Columbus's expeditions." However, if this is backed up by evidence, then the evidence should be further explained to ensure that it is not a biased claim. I would simply add what the evidence is so that this claim will no longer appear as biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some of the viewpoints seem underrepresented; you could add more information in general for the differing views regarding Tuberculosis.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is not a lot of new content, but what is there is backed up by a reliable source. There is content in this user's sandbox that uses a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most sources are thorough, but some are not (like Britannica).
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I believe so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked various links that work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is all well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I do not see any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but more sections and information could be added overall.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image, but more images (along with information regarding the images) could be added.
 * Are images well-captioned? It is captioned, but needs more information. What does this image say about paleopathology?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it is from the Public Domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but it needs more images and information regarding the images.

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? Yes, the article is supported by various resources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources are satisfactory.
 * 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? Yes, but it can be expanded overall.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are a lot of links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? So far, there has only been one reference added. However, the user's sandbox appears to be preparing to add more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? My peer added one strong reference, but again, my peer has plans in their sandbox.
 * How can the content added be improved? This topic can be widely expanded. More sections can be included, such as sections discussing different diseases. There also can be a section added where it discusses paleopathology's use in archaeology. You can also add more for the animal section.