User:LaurenBiology/Granulomatous amoebic encephalitis/Zejn0120 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LaurenBiology

Link to draft you're reviewing

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LaurenBiology/Granulomatous_amoebic_encephalitis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
This peer review will be based on Lauren Biology Wikipedia article on Granulomatous amoebic encephalitis. In general, the Wikipedia article meets basic assignment requirements which is the copyright-free image and the three peer-reviewed articles, but individual does not meet the 500-word threshold since their Wikipedia article has 493 words. Individual has added a whole section on the Epidemiology of GAE disease.

Lead
The lead does include a small paragraph explaining what the individual based its Wikipedia article on and it describes the topic. The lead does not include a brief description about each of the edited article’s headings such as “Epidemiology,” “Acanthamoeba,” “Balamuthia” and “Sappinia.” Moreover, the lead is very brief, simple, and concise and not detailed at all, it goes straight to the point. The lead does not include information about the article that is not present, it just explains the number of references used in the edit, which in this case, was 4 new references. The lead does explain that the edited article on Epidemiology is a completely new section to the original Wikipedia article on Granulomatous amoebic encephalitis. Furthermore, the lead is updated reflecting the new content that the individual has added in their edit. In general, the lead is very brief and does not contain much explanation to give the reader a small introduction on the subject of the article’s topic.

Content
The content is relevant to the topic. In this case the Wikipedia article edit by the individual was explaining the epidemiology in GAE. The article goes into detail to explain that GAE can be caused by three main genus or strains of free living amoeba and gives details for each one as well. The content is up to date since 3 out of the 4 peer reviewed references are from 2020 to 2022 and one of them is from 2013 which is still recent. In my opinion, the only objection I had in the content section was that the writer did not connect and explain enough Balamuthia and Sappinia. For example, the writer introduces Acanthamoeba explaining that it is the genus most responsible for GAE and starts explaining the countries where its most common. On the other hand, for the subheadings of Balamuthia and Sappinia this introduction is missing, which makes these two-amoeba genus description confusing in relation to the rest of the article. Furthermore, the Acanthamoeba subheading is described very well, while the other 2 subheadings are very brief and leave the reader with multiple questions such as their most common locations and how do they relate in a broader spectrum to Acanthamoebaand GAE. The writer could have compared the three and explained if one strain or genus is more dangerous than the other one. Apart from that, the content section contains a very visual map about the distribution of Acanthamoeba.

Tone and Balance
This article is about the disease, Granulomatous amoebic encephalitis, and therefore it has a general scientific tone with no bias. This would be different if it was an article about a head of state, a political party, or a controversial topic. The subheading Acanthamoeba is represented very well and explained in detail, while the subheadings Balamuthia and Sappinia are very short and need further explanation to connect to the rest of the article. In this case, they are not viewpoints, but instead they are topics that are not talked about as much as Acanthamoeba. The content does not try to persuade the reader, instead it teaches the reader about the Epidemiology of GAE and notes that USA and India have the highest rate of GAE infection caused by Acanthamoeba. This article in no way is biased and holds a general point of view about GAE which is common for scientific Wikipedia articles.

Sources and References
In this article there are a total of 4 sources. Three of them are peer reviewed journals and the fourth one is a textbook on parasitology. The first source does reflect on the content of the article since the data of the article and the country distribution is the same as of that in the peer reviewed journal. The second journal article also is reflected in the content of the article since it contains a lot of information on the Sappinia genus which matches with what is in the article. The third article is also a very good representation of what is in the article’s content on Epidemiology. Lastly the textbook source is reliable and reflects the information used on the article, even though only one small piece of information is used from this source. All four sources are very detailed and thorough and are current to other studies of the same topic. All sources work and are written by diverse authors from different fields of study.