User:EEEpidemiologist/Hendra virus/JJ1023 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EEEpidemiologist


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:EEEpidemiologist/Hendra virus


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hendra virus

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead was not expanded on. It could be further expanded to talk about the rest of the information in the article that is not mentioned.

The major sections could be mentioned.

Content:

The information added is relevant and is the most up to date case mentioned so far. This makes the article more current and reliable.

Tone and Balance:

The paragraph is neutral and presents no bias. There are no persuasive words used.

Sources and references:

It is unclear which source or reference is used for the added information. There is lots listed but none seem to fit the time period mentioned in the information.

Organization:

The information is organized chronologically because it is describing an event. It is also concisely structured by keeping one idea per sentence.

If placed at the end of the article, it would fit the flow and structure already established.

Images and Media:

No new images or media was added.

Overall:

The information is simple and could be expanded on, but it is well presented. It does give a recent account in the real world, which makes the article more concurrent and accurate. The information is presented simply that allows the reader to process it. It's biggest weaknesses are its length and citations. Just providing more information about the effects of the outbreak or how it was resolved, because it is important information that is left out.