User:MalenaVelazquez/Infection in childcare/TMV2020UPRC 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? (MalenaVelazquez)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MalenaVelazquez/Infection in childcare

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
In this article, she only works on the part of the Prevention. This paragraph already has a good lead in the main article, the introductory sentences are very concise and clear and describe the information about de Prevention section.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic because she mentions the different products that can be used to prevent the infection. This is important because people can get an idea of ​​what they can use. This article is good but other sections can be added that mention the most common diseases in childcare as well as how these infections can be prevented from home and the importance of the necessary care in these centers.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
In the tone and balance, this article is very neutral, the points are good presented and the content doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article already has very references, for the only information that has been added that reference works and appears to be from a reliable source. If you decide to add more information soon, you should see other references that would make the article more prepared.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The added content is well written and is concise, clear, and easy to read. But have some grammar errors: the word "alternatives" is written like "alternetive", also when say "Most of the objects in "child care"... can be added before child the word "the or a". The last error is in the sentence "There is some disinfectant that have studies..." the word "have" must be changed to "has". The last point the content is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
This article already has images, and which are complete with all the points expressed in this evaluation section.

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
As I mentioned before the added content improves the article a little, but adding a little more information would be better.