User:EthosNap/Measles morbillivirus/OMIHEP 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? EthosNap
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EthosNap/Measles morbillivirus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is updated and it indicates that new information that the original articles does not have is going to be presented.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead includes an introductory sentence offering background regarding measles prevention. Furthermore, the introductory paragraphs mention the method physicians have used to prevent the disease.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead mentions one of the aspects the user will be writing about, yet it does not seem that the articles is going to have other sections at first sight.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead focus on information not present in the article. Indeed, none of the article sections mention how measles is prevented around the globe nor the kind of efforts health authorities are addressing the disease.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and the presented information has been well-reduced to be concise and clear.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic, especially because it focus only on prevention itself, including the type of vaccine used for immunization and the case-based surveillance for prevention. e
 * Is the content added up-to-dat The sources my classmate has used are not older than 2016, being only 4 years old. Thus, the information is the content is up-to-date. d is up-to-date. e?
 * Is there content that is missing or content th There is no signs in the article that the content added is not found in any of the articles. However, it would be a great contribution is a number of cases and the percentage of the population affected every year are provided. at does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not address any of the underrepresented population or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added does not intend to adopt a position towards the topic. The way the contribution has been written is neutral and based on the secondary sources.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All of the sentences intend to provide reliable information and are based on facts avoiding personal opinions especially because numerical data is presented.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The content is well balanced and neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not present any bias and only present what the information the reliable secondary sources provides about the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is, the contribution information is backed up by secondary research articles and sources. The written information is supported by 4 reliable secondary sources regarding Measles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current. The oldest source used is 4 years old, whereas the other three sources are from 2018 and 2020. The information is up-to--date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The source were written by health experts and scientist who had studied Measles or at least have the preparation to contribute for the topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the included links work fine. Also, all of the references have links to their respective article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The information is understandable and it does not a lot of technical terms and if it does it, it contains link to other articles that explain it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The information is well-written and not grammatical errors are visible. Commas, words capitalizations, and periods have been properly used.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The section is organized in two paragraphs, one focusing in providing an overview about the use of vaccine as a measles prevention and the other paragraph expands on the type of vaccines use and the doses require for providing immunity. Hence, the topic is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not contain images or media.
 * Are images well-captioned? The article does not contain images or media.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The article does not contain images or media.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The article does not contain images or media.

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? Yes, the article is supported by four reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is not exhaustive, yet the contribution is short. Therefore, I believe that the number of articles are acceptable for the written information.
 * 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? The article contain a section heading, except infroboxes. It is possible that the article will contain as it is being finished.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article contains links to others article for technical terms clarifications which results useful to understand the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content has improved the quality of the article. It added a prevention section that the original article did not have.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? First, the user added a new section that the original article did not have. Thus, the information complements and expands on measles. Second, the information provided is well-organized and its summarizes in simple words what the sources content.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by exploring more sources so that their information reinforce and expand on what has been already written.

Overall evaluation
'''The content is well-written, organized, and concise, and reliable. There are no grammatical or spelling mistakes. The information presents numerical data and contains external links for technical words. The sources chosen follow the standards that Wikipedia asks for while selecting the sources. Overall, the article is great and the author could expand more.'''