User:Avaaakatz/Waterborne diseases Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead sparks interest in the audience by directly summarizing the topic, while I would add in a sentence about the specific waterborne diseases that you will talk about in the article.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, but I would add in some more specifics about the waterborne diseases that will be included in the sections.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

no.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

concise, but could be more detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content about the specifics and names of the waterborne diseases.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, it addresses the issues and consequences of waterborne diseases in children, and possibly in poorer communites,

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, but the adjective "pressing" in the lead sentence seems to be a little strong of a tone.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No,

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes,

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.

Are the sources current?

Yes.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes,

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Commas are incorrectly placed in some places.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, but needs more specific information, seems a little vague.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes

Are images well-captioned?

Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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.

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

Yes.

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.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths is that it is concise and neutral.

How can the content added be improved?

could add in more descriptive, factual information and fix some grammatical errors.