User:Alexro25/Intracellular parasite/Armiejane Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Alexro25)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexro25/Intracellular_parasite?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead section provided a good introduction about the topic of research and was written in a way that was clear and concise. New informative information was added in introducing the topic which helped in further defining the parasite that is focused on the article. Moreover, I also suggest adding just a few more information in the introduction of the topic by briefly explaining the sections that your article will be covering. I think this way, people will have a better understanding of the other sections you will be introducing moving forward in your article thus, providing just enough context of information but also ensuring that you are not overexplaining. Otherwise, I personally think that the length of information you provided in discussing your topic was very straightforward and it was great that you focused on only highlighting necessary information. I hope the small suggestion I made will be helpful.

The Content section added relevant topics that is related to the topic such that the two main types of intracellular parasites were indicated and described. And possibly for your second edit, if given the chance to add in a new information, I think an epidemiology would be great to add. It was mentioned how this parasite can be harmful therefore, it would be very interesting to know how this may have spread across other areas or maybe even globally; also note of the amount of people that may have been affected and the area in which this parasite usually is located. If any of this information is indicated through your research regarding these, it would be a useful content to add. Additionally, include an image if the second edit requires it; a statistics or data perhaps showing the outbreak of parasite. Overall, this section was written with good scientific research.

In the Tone and Balance section, content of the article was overall neutral. I found no biases perceived in the writing. I think the research was done effectively to explain exactly what the sections were about without putting any personal input but rather just pure research-based information. Moreover, each sections had information written to it accordingly although there are viewpoints that I found underrepresented in one section, specifically the obligate intracellular parasites. I think additional information may be added, if possible, to provide more context. Furthermore, in the original article, there were examples of bacteria indicated in both intracellular parasites, maybe it was not possible to include in your first edit due to word limit but, if possible, for the second edit, adding one or two examples would help in providing a more advanced context of information for these sections. It may also be helpful in the epidemiology I suggested.

In the Sources and Reference Section, sources were used although it wasn’t referenced entirely in the article. The introduction and the obligate intracellular parasites sections had no references. Additionally, majority of the article didn’t have reference after the end of each sentence, which I think would be important to include because the content provided was from research. Although one source was used in writing a paragraph, referencing it to each sentence may be better as people may be curios where the rest of the information came from. Others may not have the ability to easily conclude that the added reference at the end of a paragraph means it’s the only source used in writing the paragraph. Moreover, the second source used was dated 1971 therefore, the information provided isn’t up to date. Thus, finding a recent article to reference from may help in providing an informative content for your article.