User:Mpf53/Sickle cell disease/Sophianunn Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't think your group is editing the lead so not sure that this applies.
 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! The content is really relevant. I really appreciate that you guys dive deep into SCD in Uganda rather than providing an overview of multiple countries. Given that its so stigmatized, its important that this information be on the main SCD page on wikipedia.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes! most of the sources are from the past few years, the oldest one being from 2010.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. This article dives into SCD in Uganda, highlighting SCD in a non-western country and the ways in which it is involved with the community.

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, overall very neutral discussion of SCD in Uganda.

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.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very concise and clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't see too many grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think maybe just clarify what section this information would be under!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)