User:Mary.kittridge/Neonatal sepsis/Vuej2093 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? (Mary.kittridge)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mary.kittridge/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The information looks like it refers to the 1990s which isn't necessarily old, however, its not recent either.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead has introduced the epidemiology of neonatal sepsis fairly well, they infer that the population of those who are exposed has decreased.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, in the second paragraph it has a better explanation of neonatal sepsis and where the pathogens are from.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead included new information on the case fatality rate in African Americans, as well as an incidence rate. The information seems to be about early-onset neonatal sepsis, as it states that late-onset sepsis is still the same in cases found.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, the details are just enough as well as the percentages shown which help produce a better understanding on how its effecting a population.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant as it talks about early-onset neonatal sepsis, as well as a population of people who are effected by early-onset neonatal sepsis
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Everything is added correct, the content has a good correlation with the main page, and adds useful information about the distribution of sepsis.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, both links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, easy to follow and straight to the point, it was obvious that they talked about early-onset neonatal sepsis.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, its a branch of neonatal sepsis, and helps show the effect of the early-onset of neonatal sepsis.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images.

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?
 * Yes, this added content will give a better understanding about early-onset neonatal sepsis, as they inform you right away that late-onset sepsis has not changed since the 1990s as that is the most recent information based on the given references.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It improves the understanding and the risk factors involved in early-onset neonatal sepsis. It gives a good insight on the many different possibilities there are of receiving early-onset neonatal sepsis.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There are difficult and large words which someone who doesn't have a strong background in medical terminology may struggle to understand. Having a link for words would be helpful, as they would then be able to find out what that word is or what the procedure happening is. The epidemiology seems to be directed specifically to early-onset neonatal sepsis. Should that be included in the title as it really on contributes to that part of neonatal sepsis? Some sentences in the end are a little long and also seem quoted, however, it they aren't quoted than it is fine.