User:Filmfanatic88/Notable Figures in the Discovery of the Germ Theory of Disease/PsychgirlTYTY Peer Review

General info
(Filmfanatic88)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filmfanatic88/Key_19th_Century_Figures_in_the_Discovery_and_Development_of_the_Germ_Theory_of_Disease
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filmfanatic88/Key_19th_Century_Figures_in_the_Discovery_and_Development_of_the_Germ_Theory_of_Disease

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)New Article

The editor made sure to have a long list of sources and are mostly in tune with the laws of Wiki Edu. My suggestion would be to go back and check each one just to be sure. Wiki Edu is quite tricky, but I feel that this editor would have revised in a good way regardless. The sources come from a variety of places which is very good. By having that diversity, it helps address many viewpoints.

Lead

The lead has been updated correctly due to the fact that this article is very new. The editor took the time and effort to create their own version on a specific topic. It has a neutral theme, and the information is very concise. The lead does its job of opening up the information to the other subtopics.

Content

The content is very good and interesting. I love the idea of having pictures, diagrams, and other visual tools to make the page pop. The information is very updated with mostly new sources of this century. That shows that the editor took the time and effort to be current and update.

Tone and Balance

The tone is neutral, and the information is there to be informative. The information goes on to strictly address the contributions of people in that time period. The information does not shun or tell that one person's contributions are greater than the other. I like that the editor was cautious with the words and information on their page. ￼

Sources :

The sources are listed nicely, and it is easy to follow. They are from this century and relatively new. The sources should be checked to make sure they are secondary sources. Even though, they might not have that issue I strongly suggest that due to the Wiki Laws that we have to follow. I need to check my own as well. However, besides that I feel that the editor did an awesome job! ￼

'''Overall Impressions: Fantastic Job! The fact that they created their own article is amazing! They have really used the tool of Wiki Edu and taken advance of the opportunity. I would use this article as a reference to improving my own article. My suggestion would be check the sources, check for grammar if any errors, and listen to the feedback of our professor. I feel that if this editor does that they will have no problems.'''