User:Jrpaul7/Saveria Campo/Jbc8 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Jrpaul7)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * *** No sandbox draft available, same link as below
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Saveria Campo

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes
 * 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?
 * for all major sections except later life
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * fairly 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?
 * no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes: research relating to HPV-induced cervical cancer in women

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, no presented opinions
 * 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?
 * yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, all current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes, no
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * Yes, definitely a better source that source #2, which is just the CDC information page about HPV and cancer.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part, sentence structure / wording gets a little repetitive in Early life section
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few unnecessary commas at end of research section
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * 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[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, article is much more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good job tying in cancer research to animal science background and explaining importance of vaccine
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Some of the Early Life / Education and Research wording could be restructured to allow for the article to flow better.

Overall evaluation[edit]
Updates to the original article were definitely beneficial. I thought some of the wording / sentence structure in the early parts of the article were a little redundant. Overall, information added was factual and backed up by solid sources.