User:Nickolasmassaro/Ancylostoma tubaeforme/Aidenward 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? Nickolasmassaro
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nickolasmassaro/sandbox

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
''' Good lead, it gives a general information about hookworms and a bit about the hookworm of choice. The lead is concise, but does not make much reference to the specific content of the page. '''

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?

Content evaluation
''' The content added seems relevant to the topic being discussed. '''

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
''' Everything added by the user is just description of A. tubaeforme and there is no real stance taken due to the content that the user is presenting. '''

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
''' All the sources seem reliable. One primary source and two secondary. All the sources are directly related to the topic that is being covered. Two of the sources are less than 10 years old and the last is less than 20. Not the newest sources, but reliable sources. Since it is mostly describing the characteristics of the parasite and not physiological pathways and new unknowns, older sources work fine. '''

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 content added by the user seems well organized and not unreasonable for the average user to understand. It is broken down into manageable categories that are focused on the topic at hand. '''

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
''' The image included in the draft is not of A. tubaeforme and its relevance is not mentioned. '''

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
==== I believe overall that the content added was relevant and was quality. The strengths of the article are the references and the breakdown of the life cycle. One thing that could be improved upon is the image selection. I would like to know why the image chosen is relevant and not of the parasite at hand. ====