User:Mona Ibsa/Keratin disease/Rentre7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mona Ibsa


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mona%20Ibsa/Keratin_disease?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Keratin disease

Evaluate the drafted changes
For the Lead Section of the article by one of our fellow peers, Mona Ibsa, it was found that it was well done. The article is focused on the Keratin disease that plagues so many people. The definition of the keratin disease was given and was well defined. This is a very good thing to include when introducing the topic at hand. A suggestion that I would personally give would be to maybe go a bit more in-depth when introducing the topic at hand. Though the original may have much content withing the article, there may be a few more details that could be added. The introduction of the topic was short and succinct but I believe that there could have been a bit more to be added to the introduction and better have a Lead for the article. Other than that aspect, it was well done and well written.

As it relates to the Content section of the draft that was written, I also believe that it was well done. All that was added in the draft was relevant to the article topic and is there for the benefit of the reader to obtain valuable information. I do not believe that there was anything in the article that distracted me, the reader. Everything was added for a reason and was not just put in for the sake of adding more words for the completion of the article. It was seen that there was even a table added that lists the examples of some known types of the keratin diseases. Its structural support as well as some of its abnormalities were mentioned which added to the valuable information included for the sake of the reader to be well informed. There was no bias seen, as references had been provided in the article. All the requirements listed are met (word count, image, reference count etc.)

As it relates to the Tone and Balance of the article, the article proved to be informative and had a very neutral standpoint as there were not opinions provided and the purpose of the article was not to persuade or dissuade. The purpose of the article was to inform the reader and the audience by providing facts about the keratin disease without allowing any bias from being shown while writing the draft of this article. The facts within were supported by appropriate and reliable references that are definitely up to date. There was a decent balance seen while reading and it made for easy reading. For those that do not have an extensive knowledge of the subject, it is noted that it is simple enough for easy understanding and comprehension. Overall, the tone and balance of the article was acceptable and the article was deliberately and well constructed for easy reading.

For the Sources and References for this article, I really found no faults while looking it over. There were the in text citations that were added to prevent any form of plagiarism or any opinions from being formed. They were placed to link the references that were placed below to show were the information was taken and sourced. The reference list was well listed and were cited well, as it should be in any article that is written. For the references, it is noted that there was not any information that is out of date. These sources are all neutral sources. All the links listed below work well and the sources all support the claims that are seen in the article. The only thing would be that it seems like there is something in red for some of the citations that say “Check date values in.” I am not sure if that’s an error. If so, it may need to be resolved.