User:AlveoliRavioli/Norovirus/A3C7 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? (provide username) AlveoliRavioli
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AlveoliRavioli/Norovirus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated yet. Because the contribution is not yet fully formed, it would be difficult to update the lead section. Once the contribution has been better developed and topics of focus are narrowed, it will be easier to update the lead section to include the contribution.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence in the lead section efficiently communicates what the article is going to cover. This sentence is a bit short, so more can be added if desired, but I think it effectively communicates the main topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not have a brief description of the article's major sections. This could be one contribution that could be added to improve this article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I don't see anything in the lead that is not at least mentioned in the rest of the article. Although it may not be discussed very much in the rest of the article (Ex: how this virus infects other mammals), it is at least mentioned later on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is not overly detailed. In fact, more details should be added to improve this article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is definitely relevant to the topic and the details that you pointed out in the article is impressive.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content seems to be up-to-date. There are so many edits that have been made in 2020, as recently as yesterday (October 10). This page seems to have many people editing it and keeping the information up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some content missing that could be added that focus more on the structure and function of the virus. For example, the article does not talk much on the lifecycle of the virus. It also does not mention all the different proteins present on the virus and what their functions are.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * One thing that you mentioned in your contribution that I thought is really good is about how this virus might affect people that don't have access to clean water. Looking at how socioeconomic factors may influence the impact of this virus might be one way to look at equity gaps and how this virus affects different populations of people.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content that is starting to be added is neutral. It is just stating facts and not trying to persuade towards a side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims made that are biased towards a position. You are bringing in information about the virus that is established and well researched.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As far as I can tell there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content is not intended to persuade. It is given in a way that provides the reader with more information about the virus.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are reliable sources given at the end of the contribution sandbox page, but they are not linked to any of the information in the draft. Putting citations within the draft will let readers know where the information for each section is found.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources listed on the page seem to be good and provide thorough information about this virus. One thing that should be added is even more sources that can continue to back up any claims that are made and provide even more information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are pretty current. The least recent source is from 2016, but the other ones are from 2020, 2019, and 2018. Articles from these years should provide reliable, up-to-date information on the virus.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * One of the sources is written by a woman. Historically women have been marginalized in the field of science. Other than that I'm not sure if any other marginalized individuals are represented.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links used seem to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content that is being added needs to be edited so that it is written in paragraph form and more organized. This might be easier if one or two topics are chosen to be written about. Right now the content is more just general ideas of what should be added and what needs to be researched and written about further.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content needs to be organized more and broken up into sections that are being written about. Right now it seems like more of a list of general ideas to research and write about.

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

No images are being added at this point.


 * 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?

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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content is not yet fully formed enough yet to add to the quality of the article. The ideas and information here seem like they will be a good contribution, so once more research has been done and the paragraphs are more complete then the contribution will make the article more complete because more information is being added about the virus.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content being added really focuses on the details of this virus, which is an important contribution to make. Looking more at the structure of the virus will provide better information about the virus and how it works. Another great contribution is how you are wanting to look at global statistics of the virus rather than just the U.S. This can provide more information about how the virus functions in different environments.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved by adding more to the structure of your contributions and making fully formed sentences and paragraphs rather than just having bullet points of what should be looked at and discussed. The information presented here is a really good start, but there is still more work to be done in figuring out how to present the information, where to fit it in the article, and finding good sources that back up these claims. This is a great start though!