User:Rubiii1231/Blastoma/Knm027 Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:

·       Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead hasn't been updated, but I don't think it needs to be.

·       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? The lead is concise

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? The content belongs

'''·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?''' N/A

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral

·       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

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.)''' Yes

·       Are the sources thorough -i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

·       Are the sources current? Yes they are very recent

'''·       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.)''' The citations seem good

'''·       Check a few links. Do they work?''' Yes the links do work

The 7th reference needs to be fixed, seems like the date is put in wrong and its causing it to have a date error.

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? The first sentence added "Chemotherapy has become essential for a children recovery especially for children's that are in a higher danger to the cancer." could be changed to something like "Chemotherapy has become essential for recovery in children, especially for children that are at higher risk for the cancer."

·       Is the content added well-organized -i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A

·       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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

·       Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article -i.e. is the article more complete? I think the content added has improved the article a bit. Keep adding some more if you are able to! You could also add links to terms such as chemotherapy or Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome or links to the different types of blastomas.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rubiii1231


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rubiii1231/Blastoma


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Blastoma

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.)