User:Krg0302/Epizootic hemorrhagic disease/Sokmleopard Peer Review

General info
(Kevin Gerina)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Epizootic hemorrhagic 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.)

Hey Kevin,

I liked reading more on EDH and even more so was intrigued by what your contribution added to both the history and distribution sections. It added some meat to what seemed like bare bones and seems to be very useful in understanding the disease as a whole. Your additions made reading the article way less boring and more interesting in my opinion. As of right now there are still citations that need to be added and i can see where you have marked them to be done. instead of every sentence including a cited sources I would like to see your thoughts as a professional on the subject and what some of the data from the sources means to you. Obviously you know not to tell it in a tone that shows your personal opinions but just a few extra sentences. Overall, I like how you kind of show the shift in research focuses and how more of the recent findings.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * the information added within the sandbox for EHD is closely resembled. It does a good job of adding to content that is already there and even suggesting citations for the previous text on top of the new. When reading the additional geographical content I felt that what was added was very useful in helping me understand that there are differences in symptoms in relation to where the species contracts EHD.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The citations used to support their claims were really up to date with the one being as new as 2023 and the oldest in 2003. I feel like this is a good range of research and evidence that has newer data.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel as though there is no unnecessary content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does include related data regarding the historical populations of the species being discussed. It show how 'current research' relates to the historical outlooks.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nope.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope.

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 they give more than enough information in order to be used as a credible source.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of them are.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are a variety that are used more than once. I understand that it is good to have well versed sources but if it can be done using fewer i feel like that is better.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I feel kevin is more qualified and would not use sources that would be considered less than others.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * they worked for me.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * it is c;ear and to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * N/A.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is organised and flows with the rest of the original article.