User:Ewu19/Asepsis/Tuphoff1 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
 * MY COMMENTS ARE IN BOLD.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I believe the Lead is a bit lacking in reflecting the new content added. It seems like the only thing changes was adding a few descriptive words in the second sentence.  Maybe focus on this a bit more in your next draft.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. All good here, no need to change the first sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * While the lead does a good job of introducing the Method section, I would like to see a brief description of what is to come in the history section.
 * 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, yet like I said above, missing a few key details (i.e. introducing history section and adding some of the new content you added).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content added was relevant to the topic. You added the Johns Hopkins Medicine connection in the History section and added to the Method Section, while consolidating the prior information in that section
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes; upon reviewing your sources, I believe that the content added is accurate and up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * At the very end of the history section, it would be nice (in my opinion) to elaborate on some of the varying interpretations of the antisepsis vs. asepsis debate.
 * I also would suggest adding the major dates in the History section in order to provide the reader with a sense of a timeline for the evolution of asepsis

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The only time I truly questioned the neutrality of the article was in the Method section sentences: "In an operating room ... maintain the sterile field." and "Medical procedure ... filtering and airflow."
 * I would either rephrase the sentence to avoid suggesting that a surgical team "should" demonstrate good aseptic technique or add a source that highlights this. The phrasing here would suggest you are an expert in the field of asepsis.
 * Main point: avoid "should"
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Aside from my brief suggestion of avoiding "should" above, I did not see any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * 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?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or way from another; instead the content seems to present the facts in an unbiased manner

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I am thinking you might need to add citations to these sentences in the history section:
 * "It was not until after ... surgical infection rates."
 * "Ernst von Bergmann introduced ... surgical instruments"
 * "In his department at Johns Hopkins Hospital ... stiff brushes"
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Given that the sources came from a variety of authors and a variety of time periods, I believe that the sources are thorough in the sense that they reflect the available literature on the topic. However, as mentioned above, I believe the History section has too many unsourced sentences.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are relatively current (i.e. source 1 was published in 2011), while others are more dated, but relevant nonetheless.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. But is there a way to provide a link for source 3 and/or 7?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Overall, the content added seems to be well-written. Specifically, I like how you made the old content in the method section much more concise.  I would like to see a bit more of that done in the History section however.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * One grammatical error I notices was in the History section where you forgot a period in the sentence using source 1.
 * Also in the History section, you need to switch "wore" to "wear" in the sentence "Preceding modern-day scrubs attire ... open wounds"
 * A side note for this sentence; I believe that this sentence is a bit long and can either be said more concisely or broken up into 2 sentences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I believe that you should add more subsections. For example, I think it would be nice to have a separate section or subsection for operating room attire.  This would also pave way to add some more detail on attire as well as add more pictures.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Currently there are no images.
 * 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

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?
 * While I believe that the content added improved the overall quality of the article, there is much more that can be done to make this article even more complete. My main suggestions include:
 * Adding images.
 * Adding more sources
 * Adding more subsections
 * Making the Method section easier to understand and less technical, so the average reader can better understand it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The biggest strength with the content added is how concise it is. I feel like the most addition was made in the Method section as well as the connection to Johns Hopkins Medicine in the history section.  Both sections for the most pare are also very neutral (with the slight exception I described above).
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See my suggestions in the first question of this section.