User:Briar Perkely/Epstein–Barr virus/GreatDane15 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? Briar Perkely
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Briar Perkely/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead for this article within the user sandbox. There are sections dedicated to Epidemiology, Reactiviation, Structure and Genome, and Diagnosis and Treatment clearly marked within the sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is no lead, but the paragraphs written state they are about Epstein-Barr virus. I can tell that the article is talking about EBV and not another virus because of this.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The sections are noted and separated so that the content is clearly understood.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The information in the sandbox is present in the article, but the sandbox information gives a more clear understanding of the virus and gives more information where there may not be in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The sections that have been edited are concise and direct. Though they may not be complete due to the amount of information present, they are easy to understand.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All of the content within the sandbox is about EBV.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The information stated was gathered from sources that were written in the last ten years, therefore the information is present.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The paragraphs may be unfinished because there seems to be more info that could be added, but the information present is clear and easily understood.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article mentions that people of lower socioeconomic status are at a higher risk for EBV and explains why this occurs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content has not persuaded the leader to believe one way or the other as only facts are presented in the paragraphs written.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that are biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints expressed are equal in standing.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content only presents facts about EBV and does not persuade the reader otherwise.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content expressed in the paragraphs are backed up by several secondary sources, as well as several primary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are all related to specificities and general information about EBV.
 * Are the sources current? The sources were updated or written within the last ten years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Each article was written by a different author.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links work and I am able to find all sources by looking at the citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise and clear, though the paragraphs may be unfinished as there is more information that could be provided.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a couple of grammatical errors in earlier posts, but these were fixed in the most recent edits.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content has clear, separated sections that make it easy to understand what topic surrounding EBV is being addressed.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The user added content that more thoroughly explained different aspects of EBV that were not necessarily explained in the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very direct and factual allowing easy understanding of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? There could be more information added within the paragraphs as they seem somewhat incomplete, but all the information is clear and understandable.

Overall evaluation
~

Thank you for your feedback! I will continuing adding more information for the article. Briar Perkely: October 16, 2020.