User:Pepperonys/Hepatitis B virus/OMIHEP 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) Pepperonys
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pepperonys/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is updated and it indicates that new information that the original articles does not have is going to be presented. It also provides a concise and detailed overview about general information of Hepatitis virus.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead includes an introductory sentence offering background regarding Hepatitis transmission, prevalence, secondary diseases, prevention and reservoirs.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead mentions 4 aspects the user will be writing about and has included three major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead focus and transmission and a brief overview of hepatitis virus which is not presented in the original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise in detailed. Indeed, it gives a map of what the user is going to contribute to the article. Thus, it suggests that the original articles has been considerable analyzed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic, especially because it focus on important hepatitis aspects such as transmission, virulence, and vulnerable population.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The sources my classmate has used are not older than 2016, being only 4 years old. Thus, the information is the content is up-to-date. Also, the content is based in one article from the current year 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are no signs in the article that the content added is not found in any of the articles. it would be a great contribution if the number of cases and the percentage of the population affected every year are provided.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not address any of the underrepresented population or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added does not intend to adopt a position towards the topic. The way the contribution has been written is neutral and based on the secondary sources.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All of the sentences intend to provide reliable information and are based on facts avoiding personal opinions especially because numerical data is presented.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The content is well balanced and neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not present any bias and only references what the information the secondary sources information provides about the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is, the contribution information is backed up by secondary research articles and sources. The written information is supported by 5 reliable sources regarding Hepatitis, all of them referred with their respective link to the original article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources present the available literature for some of the sources information overlaps with one another. In other words, the same information is found in more than one article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current. The oldest source used is 4 years old, whereas the other three sources are from 2018 and 2020. The information is up-to--date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The source were written by experts and scientist capable of providing trustful content about hepatitis virus.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the included links work fine. Also, all of the references have links to their respective article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The information is understandable, clear and easy to read. The user made a great job in simplifying the sources information into digestible words for those who are not experts in the topic. Thus, the content follows what a Wikipedia article strives for.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The information is well-written and not grammatical errors are visible. Commas, words capitalizations, and periods have been properly used.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The information has been separated in two sections, and three more will be added. It reflects information missing in the original article. If the planned structure is followed, then it is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not contain images or media.
 * Are images well-captioned? The article does not contain images or media.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The article does not contain images or media.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The article does not contain images or media.

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? Yes, the article is supported by five reliable secondary sources from science-related data bases.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is not exhaustive, yet the contribution is short. The information provided represents the available literature of the subject. As I mentioned early in the review, there is information found in more than one article. Thus, the information should be widely accepted about the topic.
 * 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? The article contain several sheadings and sections, except infroboxes. It is possible that the article will contain as it is being finished.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article does not present link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is more complete for a new section has been added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? One strength of the content added is the reliable information obtained for reliable secondary sources. Also, the section of transmission expands and complements the original article for it is essential information the way hepatitis is transmitted. Another strength involves expanding in sections that the original article has, but has stayed short in terms of relevance.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can improve if a short comparison between the hepatitis types is  provided, so that the readers can have a better understanding about hepatitis B biology.

Overall evaluation
'''First, the content information is reliable for the secondary sources are as well. The information has been properly turn into digestible material, understandable, concise, and detailed. Furthermore, the information content addresses information not contained by the original article which makes the contribution even more necessary. Few changes should be made to article in terms of information, yet it is possible that more information per each section will be added once it has been finished.'''