User:Storo23/Texas Vampires/KClaudio Peer Review

Peer review: Texas Vampires
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: Texas Vampires

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It well summarized, however the whole article is part of the Lead

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? It should include a description of the article's major sections (if a new section is added).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No, it mostly presents the side of the individuals affected with the Texas Vampires' study but does not present any response from the research group or the institution that supported the study (Baylor College of Medicine).
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, towards the group of individuals that were part of the Texas Vampires' study
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the response of the Texas Vampires research group or from the institution supporting the study.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It seems that the objective is only to expose the Texas Vampires without providing any information from the other side.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, although this is an old event, it is hard to have recent sources.
 * 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? Yes, however it needs to separate the Lead from the rest of the article where the ethical issue is presented.
 * 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? No, it needs a section title "Ethical issues" or something similar. In addition, it needs more information about the ethical principles that were not followed by this research group such as Non-beneficence and autonomy. The article will be benefited from having this ethical violations better explained and from having a section of the other's side perspective (if available).

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It has 9 references, it could have more if new sections are added.
 * 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? No, it needs headings to separate the content.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No changes has been made yet.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No changes has been made yet.
 * How can the content added be improved? No changes has been made yet.