User:Kef283/Infectious disease (medical specialty)/LaneSkoDen 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? Kef283, (Rio De Flag)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Infectious disease (medical specialty)

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

- Yes, I notice changes have been made and up to date while comparing their chosen stub article and their Stub Article improvement document.


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

-The article did already provide the definition on the topic, so i would agree that the article was provided with an introductory sentence that is clear.


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

-Yes the article gave a brief description on what a "Infectious disease specialist" is,  however they did not give any examples on what kind of scientists are considered to be a "infectious disease specialist.


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

-The only information that was provided but wasn't shown before were the in-dept definitions rather than leaving it as a simple word without the specific examples.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The article before did lack some information on some parts of the subtopics, after editing I notice the improvements they made was concise enough.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

-Yes, most corrections made were related to the subtopic and topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

-Yes


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

-No, I did not find any missing information.


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

-I did not find any sentences that would alter wikipedias equity gaps, there was history subtopic involved that was concise as far as the improvements.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

-NO


 * 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?

-I think any reader that is interested in treating infectious disease, this article had some information that could be relevant to a reader that is interested in the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

-Yes, most of the references where correct.


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

-YES


 * Are the sources current?

-Most were up to date but not all were.


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

-Yes


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

-Some had errors relating to the link, but most were okay.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

-Yes


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

-Yes since it was corrected and peer reviewed already.


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

-Yes, the broad topics were narrowed enough.

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


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

-Yes I notice a gram stained microbiology attachment added.


 * Are images well-captioned?

-Yes


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

-Yes


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

-Yes

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?

-Yes


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

-Yes


 * 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?

-Yes


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

-Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

-Yes but i think additional information can be added.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

-after the review, the strengths i found were the comments that made the broad terms more specific enough to understand.


 * How can the content added be improved?

-It looks improved.