User:Dalastrascastrejon/Disease ecology/Ktjylee Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Dalastrascastrejon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dalastrascastrejon/Disease ecology


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Disease ecology

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

General:


 * 1) What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) Overall, there's a great amount of resources that were used and it's great to see that each sentence has a proper source that is cited. There's clear information and it's easy to read.
 * 3) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 4) I think the only suggestion I would make would be structure improvement and shortening of some of the phrases.
 * 5) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 6) Sentence structure could be less staccato and abrupt, because it felt like each fact was a short sentence. Also, the topic sentences are a bit vague in each paragraph.
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * 8) Yes. Definitely more information and cutting to the chase of things. It's clear that the author took away keypoints from the papers that were read.

Lead:


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * I think I would move "While the field is often defined within the context of ecology as a whole, disease ecology relates ideas from a wide variety of medical and biological disciplines including immunology, epidemiology, and genetics" this sentence to the end of the lead because the other two parts of the lead are more related to one another and flow into each other.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * No not in particular.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It's a more modern approach.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over- or under-represented?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes they look thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I wish it was a bit more concise
 * 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?
 * For the In relation to climate change and in relation to temperate and tropical zones, I feel like they feel out of place and the headings could be improved.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The original article seems to have enough photos already. Maybe one of those top-view photos of temperature in an area would be cool.
 * 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

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it takes a modern approach and in varying regions
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It addresses climate change, which is a topic that should be more discussed and its effect on diseases especially.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think it comes down to smaller details of the writing. I was a bit confused about what "static approaches" are and for words like "both human and non-human" could be shortened to just all organisms.