User:Bergumar/Epidemiology of pneumonia/AustinKindelberger 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? (Bergumar)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Epidemiology of pneumonia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? no
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
Your lead facts are a little weak and dont add much numerical values to support the statements, your just stating facts you found from other sources.

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

Content evaluation
Your content is very factorial, no bias and is up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? south America underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? neither

Tone and balance evaluation
There was no persuasion in your draft, you represent multiple different regions but still need to add to the U.S. which you know and should add to South America if you can find good articles.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? 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
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Your sources are good, up to date and links work properly.

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? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
You should form these bullets into sentences and make sure that there is better flow for the reader.

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?

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? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? stating facts in concise and factorial sentences
 * How can the content added be improved? form into fluid sentences

Overall evaluation
Added a good amount to each section of the page that overall enhances each aspect of the page. Form into more fluid sentences so far it is very just throwing facts out and not tying them together or making sense of them.