User:Bowear/Powassan virus/Chadwibe4616 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? Bowear


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bowear/sandbox&action=edit&section=1

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'''- I do not believe this is relative to our assignment as it describes more of an overall article and not just the epidemiology section. With that being said, you did a good job at titling the epidemiology section. Possibly think of adding sub headers within your section to group your information by categories.''' ====

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?

Content evaluation
==== ·      '''All content is relevant and up to date. It all has great value to the article title as well. I am wondering if some of your information would fall under another section that is not epidemiology. Consider adding more statistical evidence to ensure you have enough words for the epidemiology section. I do not believe you are missing any information or have any content that doesn’t belong on the page overall. ''' ====

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
·      '''The content is all neutral and there is no bias. This has been done extremely well overall. There are no viewpoints that are over/underrepresented and doesn’t attempt to persuade the reader. '''

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'''The secondary sources all appear to be applicable to the information you have provided within your WIKI project. They all appear to be thorough on the topic at hand. All of the sources appear to be very present. All are within the last 5 years. For the sources I checked they seemed to work fine. I would suggest making your sources a direct link to the pdf you used. It may make it easier for some user to not have to click the pdf button on the screens to find the article you used.'''

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
·      '''The article is very concise, clear and easy to read. I am very impressed by the organization of each paragraph. You may want to consider the overall order of the paragraphs or if any of your information may fall into another section other than epidemiology. You have a few areas where words are missing, they are usually minor and assisting words overall. You do not have any major grammatical or spelling errors. I think you could break your information down further if you wish to do so, as I stated earlier in the peer edit. '''

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
·      '''I would highly suggest adding a form of media to your project. Even if it is just a form of media such as a graph or table potentially. '''

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
·      Not applicable to this 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
·      '''The content you have supplied will improve the article overall. It adds information that can be used to further show the effect Powassan Virus had in the past. The greatest strength is how you went through to highlight regional incidence. This could be improved with sub-category for your epidemiological section and you could include information on POWV in Canada and Russia to show things regionally. I would also add stats on how hosts vary by percentage between skunks, woodchucks and squirrels. '''