User:Storo23/Texas Vampires/Avultaggio 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? Storo23
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_Vampires&diff=916582784&oldid=916489366

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
The lead was very clear and concise and does not seem to require any attention.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content in sandbox. It is relevant to topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content that was added seems to be relevant. In terms of being up-to-date, it is from 2003, but this is an event that happened in the late 90's so I would argue that it is up-to-date. There could be some more information added about the Newfoundland's Health Research Ethics Authority and possibly a link to its own Wikipedia page (if there is one).

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
I found that all of the information was neutral, however, the viewpoint of the community seems to be possibly overrepresented as there are no quotes or statements from the alleged 'Texas Vampires.'

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
The new content is reliable and the sources do work. One source linked to a possibly biased website https://www.ottawaheart.ca/about-us/who-we-are/rich-history/our-past-visionaries that also does not confirm his involvement in the situation.

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
Storo23 did a very good job at seamlessly incorporating his new information into the Wikipedia page.

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
No images.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, Storo23 has added good information to this Wikipedia article. I would like to see more information about the Newfoundland's Health Research Ethics Authority and maybe some specific initiatives that they took after their creation. It would be interesting to see how this story has changed research in Canada!