User:Barnor Senrab/1976 Zaire Ebola virus outbreak/Tdean1234 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? Barnor Senrab
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Barnor Senrab/1976 Zaire Ebola virus outbreak

Lead
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

 * Overall, I think your lead is very well done. I would maybe start out your introduction to the epidemiology section with information about Zaire and Ebola again, but other than that it is very well done. I am very impressed with how you started your background and the information you have in it.

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

Content evaluation

 * The content you added was very relevant to the topic. It seems up-to-date and nothing seems missing. Your content describes the Zaire Ebola problem very well, and it was easy to follow and read.

Tone and Balance
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

 * Your content is neutral and not biased. I feel like the sentence, "This is another reason why the quarantine was so necessary during the time of the Ebola epidemic at this hospital." is biased, but also, makes sense with what is going on in the area during this time. I don't think it is quite bias but more informational.

Sources and References
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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Your sources added great new information and helped support your article in full success. The only thing I would say is with moving forward maybe find couple more sources to help support your article, but overall you did a great job with this.

Organization
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

 * There are possibly some run-on sentences that you might want to watch out for, but overall it was easy to read and understand. There didn't seem to be any grammar errors that I noticed.

Images and Media
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

 * No 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?
 * 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

 * This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
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

 * Overall, I was very pleased with what information you are adding to the article. It was easy to read, informational, and met the requirements of the project. I thought your sources were great and helped support your article in a positive way. I can tell you guys truly did some great research and put effort into it. I learned a tremendous amount reading it, so I think overall you guys are on the right track.