User:Novemberjazz/Eichler's rule/Kate.Rosenbaum 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? KidAd
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Eichler's rule

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the editor has added additional context to the lead about the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

Lead evaluation
The lead could benefit from a few links to sources that define certain terminology, such as "hosts" and a link to Heinrich Fahrenholz's biography page (if there is one).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Implications of Eichler's rule on the study of parasites as a whole.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not sure?

Content evaluation
''Who is Vas and how did they test Eichler's rule? What does "richness" entail? The content added about Advances in Parasitology is relevant; however, it could benefit from a sentence or two on the implications of that claim on the overall understanding of Eichler's rule.''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes; however, the original introduction sentences could be considered to not be neutral because of the phrasing "it seems reasonable to expect"
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the balance is pretty decent.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the added sources appear to be reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Unknown?
 * Are the sources current? One is from 1971, but seems to add relevant information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Possibly?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Given the brevity of the page, the editor has included a good range of sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? The page could possibly benefit from different sections or more defined paragraphs to improve organization and clarity.

Organization evaluation
Maybe add different subsections to emphasize what this knowledge adds to the scientific world.

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
N/A

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, the page appears more complete than in previous versions prior to this editor's edits.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Relevant information
 * How can the content added be improved? Synthesis of added information and sources.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this editor has made a decent amount of progress in incorporating more information and relevant research to improve the clarity of the page.