User:Bettchlk618/Environmental enteropathy/K8-25 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? Bettchlk618
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Environmental enteropathy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section has not been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed and could be edited down.

==== Lead evaluation: '''The epidemiology section rewords much of the original wiki lead section. Will you be creating a new lead section, rephrasing it, or keeping it the same. Additionally, in the lead section I would give a short, one sentence summary of the epidemiology section you added.''' ====

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? I think some sections of the article need to be expanded upon.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I am not sure to be honest.

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? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

==== Tone and balance evaluation: I don’t think the article is as balanced as it could be but it really depends on the sources you’re pulling from. If you have the information, you could add to the prevention and treatment section. The prevention section doesn’t explain the process or improving water and sanitation. If you have the time and can find reliable sources I would expand it a little. Furthermore, the research initiatives, if you have the time I would had a brief summary of the each initiative. Your content is neutral. The text is neutral but the signs and symptoms section could be reworded to sound better. ====

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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are some sections that are not as well-written as the others in the original wiki article. Your epidemiology section is really well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see after reading it.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

==== Organization evaluation: The signs and symptoms section could be reworded to sound better. The long-term symptom either could be expanded into a sentence structure or concepts. For example neurocognitive, could be explained. ====

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 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?