User:Leroyjoenoes/Vaccinology/Chevyjm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Leroyjoenoes


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccinology_and_Vaccination&action=edit&section=1#cite_note-:0-2


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * None

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Guiding questions:


 * I would say is a strong lead section. Seems too cover every very well. Could use breaking it up into paragraphs so it is easier to read.
 * Looks very well sourced and cited!

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content is very relevant to topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content seems very appropriate
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * "This page will cover the introductory..." seems to personalized as if you are speaking to the audience. I recommend making this more general.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * "... extraordinary ability..." extraordinary gives off a bias towards vaccines. Needs to be unbias. No need for that word.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * "... amazing capabilities..." amazing is once again used in a bias manner. Also, Lead section and overview section are almost identical to one another. Please change up wording in a more concise and neutral manner.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, uses lots of adjectives in places where they are not needed as mentioned above.

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. Too much. Please change the wording up could come off as the P word.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources are very thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Very current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * N/A
 * 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.)
 * Sources are good. Some do not have many citations though.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links work but would be better if they were hyperlinked.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well organized
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! Good job!

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Two images were added.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Well captioned but no sources. Please, refer to one of your peers' wiki link to see an example of a good source image
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Lots of really GOOD information and good sources.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Be careful when close paraphrasing... look over grammatical errors... break up chunks into more paragraphs for easier read.

Really good job, Leroy! Just change the wording and make lead section shorter and not so similar to the next section.