User:Filmfanatic88/Notable Figures in the Discovery of the Germ Theory of Disease/Positive not popular pysch Peer Review

General info
Filmfanatic88
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:Filmfanatic88/Key 19th Century Figures in the Discovery and Development of the Germ Theory of Disease:

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * "Though there were a few early thinkers that described the possibility of microorganisms, it was not until the mid to late nineteenth century when several noteworthy figures made discoveries which would provide more efficient practices and tools to prevent and treat illness. The mid-19th century figures set the foundation for change using investigative practices and empirical evidence, while the late-19th century figures solidified the theory." When I read this sentence out loud, it sounds a bit off... The diction/sentence structure could giver the reader the impression that the mid century figures used investigative practices and empirical evidence for their endeavors while the late century figures solidified the theory without using similar methodology. Some minor revisions would make it much more clear and concise (and my apologies if I am wrong & the the late century figures did just solidify the theory without utilizing scientific methods)
 * While the editor has done a great job tackling a new article, I would consider making some edits to the lead. I am not sure if the 5 Ws are encompassed in the lead of the article. Should the figures you will be discussing be mentioned in the lead of the article?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The article is neutral in tone and well balanced throughout.
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, it is a unbiased presentation of factual information about these critical figures and their contributions to germ theory.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * There is a citation at the end of every second or third sentence and all content is properly sourced.
 * The majority of the sources are current and the remainder were still published in this century.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I clicked at least six of the links and they worked without any issue. l did notice that some of the links took me to

Guiding questions:


 * The article is well written and clearly crafted with care.
 * Regarding grammatical or spelling errors, I would double check to make sure that there are no run on sentences or comma placement issues.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I am unclear what the major points of topic are going to be based on the lead and the headings included in the article. To make the article more organized, I would consider revising the section titles to reflect the contents discussed accurately. The first heading is titled "Mid-19th century figures and their discoveries," the second is "Late-19th century work," and the names of important figures are the subheading titles. In my opinion, I think changing the title of the second heading would be helpful. Regarding the subheadings, I would think about including the figure's name and most notable contribution development to the theory.

Images and Media

 * The images are captioned and appear to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I find the images to be interesting, but would not say they furthered my understanding of the topic at all.
 * The images are organized in a cohesive and neat layout. I would not make changes to their position in the article unless it was necessary after more content is added.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * The article goes above and beyond the 2-3 reliable secondary source minimum with 45 sources included in the reference list. So yes the article adheres to Wikipedia Notability requirements.
 * The list of sources seems very exhaustive based on the content added so far. The variety of types of sources makes it seem like there is equal representation of all available literature on the subject.
 * It seems like the article will follow the patterns of other similar articles, but I would consider my headings/subheadings carefully as I progressed through the writing process.
 * See comment above about headings.
 * The article is linked to several other wiki articles, the editor did a great job including those links throughout the article. I was pleased to see that the first hyperlinked statement in the lead was a wikilink.