User:OwensSar000/Intracellular parasite/Pmatel16 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) Sarra Owens OwensSar000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Intracellular parasite no draft just direct article

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? probably. I honestly am not sure how to check that.
 * 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? very straight to the point!

Lead evaluation
I would like to see maybe a couple more sentences just for people who don't plan on reading the whole page and want a quick skim at the top

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? most sources are fairly relevant yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? everything there is good but I think more could be included

Content evaluation
More content in general would give a reader a better understanding of intracellular parasites. give more details about mechanisms and maybe specific parasites other than just the links

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

Tone and balance evaluation
No persuasion. All good. Tone in appropriate.

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? most likely
 * Are the sources current? yes could be some more recent tho
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is very concise
 * 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? Its fine but I think it could be better

Organization evaluation
The section titles are a bit awkward like when I see the section heading it does not help be understand what is going to be in that section. For example the obligate and facultative sections could be combined into a types of intracellular parasite section or something like that. I think new section headings would help you figure out a better order as well.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
more pictures would be nice but I understand it's tricky but examples of specific parasites would be an awesome addition.

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (NOT SURE IF THIS ACTUALLY APPLIES)'''


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? probably
 * 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? not really, sections could be better defined and laid out
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? nice and concise for a quick read to get important info without extra wording
 * How can the content added be improved? better organized and better headings, more details in certain sections once reorganized

Overall evaluation
Overall could use more content in general and better layout. The wording is straightforward and good for a wiki article in my opinion, but it needs to be better organized and labelled.