User:Mathewlm9447/Erysipelas/Millerbj1837 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? (provide username)
 * Mathewlm9447
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Mathewlm9447/Erysipelas

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the lead has not been updated to reflect new content added by my peer, but that may not be necessary!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence is concise and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The major signs and symptoms, along with causes are covered in the lead, the other sections are not but that also may not be necessary as the lead could become unclear with too much information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Perhaps use more statistics from countries other than the UK and compare your findings, to help explain worldwide prevalence that you said is unknown.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content reads as neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all claims are backed up by a source. None of the sources are self-published or the editor's own research, making them sufficient secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough, and do reflect the available literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The Morris source from '08 could possibly be dated, but when there is limited literature available I think that this could be overlooked.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the authors of the sources appear to be diverse. They do not address historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links are correct and functioning.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written and organized.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is not broken down into sections, but that may not be necessary.

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


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

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?
 * NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * NA
 * 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?
 * NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the current content of the epidemiology section is small, biased, and unsupported by research. This addition will greatly improve that section of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content contains many statistics, and is well-supported by data.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The required word count for a one person project is 300, I believe your addition is currently 137. I did not count bibliography towards the word count, as since that will be located in a different section on the published article, it isn't counted towards the word count.