User:Cheerio3/Infectious diseases (medical specialty)/Hpj8sv Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cheerio3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cheerio3/Infectious_diseases_%28medical_specialty%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Infectious diseases (medical specialty)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section has been slightly updated but I feel that the information added to this section does not necessarily correspond to the bulk of the information that was added to the main body of the article. I think that the lead section would benefit from more information, specifically a slight summarization of the main points form each section of the article. At the moment it is very short and not expanded upon later in the article. I also think that the information that was added to the lead section needs to be expanded upon a bit more in a later section of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not currently, I think this needs to be added to.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead is very short and concise but I would argue that it is perhaps too concise and it needs to better tie into the rest of the article. Also, after reading the lead I am slightly confused about the topic of the article. I based on the lead and title of the article, I assumed that the topic is supposed to be on the medical professionals working in the infectious disease ward of hospitals. But the article gives information on infectious disease as a general topic.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I am having some trouble determining if the information added is relevant or not to the topic as this topic could be interpreted many ways. I touched on some of my confusion above in the lead section. In some places, the information added seems for be writing about infectious diseases as an illness rather than infectious disease as it pertains to the jobs held by medical professionals. In the history section, are you saying that the discovery of infectious disease in Greece represents that earliest infectious disease scientist? Or are you saying that it is the first time that infectious disease was discovered by civilization? At some points I am unsure if I am reading about the medical specialty or the diseases themselves.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Based on what I can tell the information added seems up to date! Great job finding sources.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? I would say that the content is very neutral. There is not really any way to take up an argumentative stance about infectious disease as a medical specialty, so I don't think writing neutrally on this matter will be a very difficult challenge. The content added does a good job presenting the facts with little other distractions and no additional opinions.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? References have been added to all sections were new information has been written so I think that all the content added is reliable. Nice Job!
 * Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? The sources look to be current and respectable, all of the links that I clicked on work.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Most of the cites that I looked at were from reputable sources and seemed to be peer reviewed. If you are looking for more sources I would highly recommend the UVA library site but it seems like you have already done a good job finding very good sources.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think in its current form the article is well organized, I just wish there were a few more sections added. In the history section, it might be helpful to split up the paragraphs added with a few sub headers just to make the development of the medical field a little bit clearer. I also think it would be interesting to look more into the pioneers of the infectious disease field and write a bit about their achievements.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think a decent amount of information has been added and it is a great start to the changes that need to be made on the article! The article is definitely more complete but I would encourage you to keep adding information because this is an interesting topic and what you have added so far is very cool to learn about.
 * How can the content added be improved? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I noticed a few grammatical errors and run on sentences throughout the information added that might need to be looked at. I would recommend that you go back and look through the work you added for any errors that might have slipped past you the first time. In the History section especially there were a few point while I was reading that I got confused based on the way that a sentence had been worded. Infectious disease is a dense topic so it would be beneficial to readers if the information was as easy to digest as possible in the grammatical sense.