User:Fdk321/Epidemiology of malnutrition/Smaiads 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?

Fdk321


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fdk321/Epidemiology of malnutrition

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The draft content has not yet been added, but the contents in the Lead section reflect the idea of the article overall.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the Lead section introduces statistics and facts about the epidemiology of malnutrition.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not explicitly, but it does offer a nice summary. The contents section includes the major sections, of which Fdk321 will have to add their section titled "Africa".


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, not that I can assess.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It does a nice job of summarizing what to expect in the further sections. More detailed information is presented.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant. Fdk321 section on Africa offers more detailed information regarding malnutrition explicitly in Africa.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The content is within 2 years of age and I would consider that up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The content provided flows nicely and each piece serves a purpose in the paragraphs. There is, however, some spelling issues and phrasing issues that I would fix and reword.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, this article and Fdk321 section on Africa directly relates to underrepresented populations and topics in Africa. Often, malnutrition is not addressed appropriately because it continues to be an ongoing issue for many parts of the world with solutions yet to be determined.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Overall, I would consider the content as being neutral. However, there are some phrasing issues which I think could be fixed to make it neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Specifically, pay attention to the phrase "being hit the hardest" and "make their situation even worse". Although I do agree that malnutrition is terrible, these phrases have a tone of bias and should be made neutral for the purpose of Wikipedia standards.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

For the purpose of epidemiology, I believe the viewpoints in this section are considered and executed successfully. Epidemiology focuses on statistics and facts to back claims and this section does that effectively.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Not explicitly, but bias could be perceived from the statements I previously mentioned. Those being: "being hit the hardest" and "make their situation even worse".

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, it appears each claim is backed by reputable organizational information regarding the topic.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I would suggest that the sources are just okay. Although reputable, I would suggest looking at WHO articles regarding malnutrition. Here is just one link I found that suggests many facts about some of the effects of malnutrition in Africa from WHO: https://www.afro.who.int/news/whos-africa-nutrition-report-highlights-increase-malnutrition-africa


 * Are the sources current?

The sources are current and up-to-date within the past 2 years.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

From what I can gather, the authors are not explicitly stated except for the World Vision source where a Kathryn Reid wrote the article. I cannot tell the ethnicity or race from the name alone.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The information is concise and mainly clear. It is easy to read. I would suggest fixing the few errors I have mentioned throughout this peer review to enhance the overall reading experience.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes. "counties" should be changed to "countries" and "drink water" should be changed to "drinking water". Also, as a reader, I am not sure what "food insure" means. This may want to be clarified for easier understanding.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the content is well-organized. Focuses on statistics and facts of epidemiology and is followed up with a separate section on factors contributing to malnutrition in Africa.

Images and Media
NOT APPLICABLE Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * 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
NOT APPLICABLE 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?

Absolutely. Fdk321 article offers a more specific look at malnutrition specifically in Africa and adds to the overall contents. I am surprised Africa has not already been added to the article. I believe, after revisions from the author, Fdk321 article will be a lasting piece on this page.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Offers clear and concise information. Overall, the strength is that it gives a more specific view of malnutrition in a specific continent and countries rather than a global perspective.


 * How can the content added be improved?

As previously mentioned, consider WHO as a resource if you need to add further supporting information. Take a look at and fix spelling and phrasing errors. I would highly suggest these improvements to make your content easier to read and have a more neutral tone to support Wikipedia guidelines. Also, don't forget to add your sources to your project bibliography page: User:Fdk321/Epidemiology of malnutrition/Bibliograpy