User:Ewu19/Asepsis/Sebawmm24 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? Ewu19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ewu19/Asepsis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead introduces the topic well, but doesn't depict most of the changes present throughout the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead introduces the article, but doesn't seem to introduce or describe any of the major sections present.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

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?
 * Obviously, since this is a draft, more information will be added along the way. But for the sections that are present, it doesn't feel like there's any missing content.

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?
 * For the most part, yes. But there were two sentences in the History section that most likely needed a citation: "It was not until after reading of the findings by Louis Pasteur that Joseph Lister introduced the use of carbolic acid as an antiseptic, and in doing so, reduced surgical infection rates," and " Ernst von Bergmann introduced the autoclave, a device used for the practice of the sterilization of surgical instruments."
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, sources are varied.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that are present work, but none can be seen for 3 or 7. Also, I'm not exactly sure how to navigate to the source of the 1st reference.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only grammatical error I noticed was in the second paragraph of the History section. "Wore" in the second sentence should be replaced with "wear."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but I do think the "Method" section can be broken down into two separate sections: medical asepsis and surgical asepsis.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images are present in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Overall, the article feels more complete thanks to the changes that were made.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The clarity of the text makes it easy to read and understand.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Further organize the "Method" section by type of asepsis, and make sure that links are provided for references 3 and 7.