User:Briar Perkely/Epstein–Barr virus/Mightychondrias 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? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources from early 2000s-2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the information that is there should all be there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it brings up the issues of socioeconomic class regarding disease prevalence and the type of disease in Africa.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is not. The author gives straight facts.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, all sources are established and unbiased.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes, ranging from early 2000s to 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The demographic of source authors are unknown.
 * 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? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical errors or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Subheadings are used and it is very clear where a new topic starts.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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. Before, the article did not have an epidemiology section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very clear and understandable and is well-written. The sources are reliable and unbiased. It also makes the article more complete because the article did not have an epidemiology section. Overall, it is a great addition.
 * How can the content added be improved? More sources could be added.

Peer Review Response
Thank you for the advice! I plan to continue contributing to the "Epstein-Barr Virus" article and will continue to add more sources. Briar Perkely (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)