User:Classaboutdeadpeople/Bubonic plague/ARH125 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? Classaboutdeadpeople
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bubonic plague

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't think the Lead has been updated by my peer (yet).
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the introductory sentence could do more to describe the topic. Right now, it is just about the bacterial cause.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead is slightly long and could be broken up into the other sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? overly detailed.

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 am not very familiar with the bubonic plague so I'm not sure if content is missing, but I don't think there is anything that doesn't belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, No.

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Of the content that has been added (mostly to the prevention section), all new content is backed by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? yes, for the topic being around for so long the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, they are written by a diverse spectrum.
 * 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? The only section that could use a lookover is the introduction, which I don't believe was edited by my peer! The Prevention section is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I don't believe my peer added images or media.
 * Are images well-captioned? See above
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? See above
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? See above

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? This article is not new, but it is supported.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is fine.
 * 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? Yes!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes! The edits made to prevention were really good!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? informational, clear, neutral
 * How can the content added be improved? Check in with the Lead section and see how it can be written more concisely. Also, the section of biological warfare is interesting but maybe not completely related to the rest of the article.