User talk:Aclewis3/sandbox

A lead section that is easy to understand 1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? While I generally think you did a good job with prefacing the article, it may be beneficial to expand the lead to include more of the information that you will be discussing. -Thank you. I will go back and put more information in my lead. 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead provides a short overview of infectious disease but does not reflect experimental contents or talk about Ewald’s 1993 book, which is the topic of the original article. -I was under the impression that my stub was supposed to solely be defining my topic. I put the vast majority of my overview info under "evolution." If that is not correct, I will go back and fix it. Thank you 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? While the lead needs to be expanded, it does not give weight to any aspect of the article over others. 4.	Is anything missing? I believe that more content from the article would be useful to include in the lead. -Thanks, got it. 5.	Is anything redundant? No portion of the lead appeared redundant. -I am glad that nothing seems to be redundant. Thanks. A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? I believe the structure of the article makes sense as it currently is written. -That is good to hear ! I was worried about how my article was structured. 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? There are a few areas in which splitting portions of text and providing additional context may be useful, but current organization makes sense. -Which areas would you suggest splitting into separate portions?

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Yes; there is not excess weight or importance placed on one subject element. -Thank you. I am glad that I followed through with having each section the appropriate length. 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? ''No; the preface and the case studies are useful. Additional context would be beneficial.'' - What kind of additional context would you say would be most beneficial ? More information about infectious diseases or more information about the studies ? 10.	Is anything off-topic? No; everything within the article seems to be on topic. -Thanks. I'm glad you thought everything seemed to be on topic. 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? As far as I am aware, the article appears to reflect perspectives well. -Thank you. 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? ''As the original article was created to convey the contents of Ewald’s Evolution of infectious disease, there are not many references to it. Introducing some of them even in the lead or the opening paragraph would provide important context.'' -I did not mention his book in particular, but there are several excerpts taken from it. I just have to add citations to them. 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No; the article focuses on presenting two case studies and providing a short explanation of epidemiology. - I will add a bit more information to make the article more rich in information, but you're right there is not a conclusion to be drawn or something to convinvce. Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No; this is a very neutral presentation of information. -This is true. There is not a certain perspective given by the author. He just states the facts about infectious diseases and everything that has been found in research to help him further explain. 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." I did not notice any non-neutral phrasing. -Thank you. I am glad that I did not put any non-neutral phrasing in the article. 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Several areas need to have statements cited (‘the researchers found’) but this can be easily rectified. -I did drop the ball by not finishing my citations. I will go back and fix that. Thank you. 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No; the article took a very neutral tone throughout and focused on presenting the topic. -Thank you.

Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? ''While the sources present are reliable, there are only three listed (Ewald 2010) is listed twice. '' -I will continue adding on my references to the wiki article. I have 10, but did not get to add them all. I will go back and do that. Thank you. 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Including more sources and citing them more frequently within the body text would be beneficial. -Thank you. I will surely do that. There are several sentences where I need to add more references. 20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! ''The paragraphs seem to be good summaries of a source, but are not directly cited within these paragraphs. I would recommend citing sources after each time you make a statement.'' Akward483 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC) -Thank you. I will get to that very soon! I will add references to most of the sentences written for the article.

Peer Review
A lead section that is easy to understand 1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? ''While the lead does a good job of introducing infectious diseases and providing well known examples of them, the importance of the topic is not explicitly stated. While the importance of diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria may seem obvious, i think it would be beneficial to add a sentence stating the human health implications.'' -Thank you. I did not outright add the human health implications because my studies were not based on humans alone and the book focused on humans as well as other organisms. I will take this into consideration and fix things accordingly 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? ''I think it reflects the most important information for the most part. However, I think it could be beneficial to add a sentence in the lead explaining that epidemiology is the study of such topics.'' -Thank you. I think that may be a good idea as well. I go back and fix the lead to add more information. 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead does not give more weight to any certain part of the article. -Thank you. 4.	Is anything missing? ''I think epidemiology being introduced in the lead could add some clarity. Other than this, I do not believe anything else is missing.'' -Thanks. I'll be sure to go back and add that into the lead. 5.	Is anything redundant? I do not think any part of the lead is redundant. -Thanks. A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? I think that the sections are well-organized, and arranged logically. -Thanks. I am glad that you find the structure to be organized. 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? the way the sections are presented are logical as they currently are in my opinion. -Thank you. I will keep the sections structured as they currently are then. Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Each section's length seems to correspond to the importance of the subject. -Thanks. I am glad that the length of my sections are suitable to your liking. 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? There are no sections in the article that do not seem necessary, each presents critical information. -I appreciate that comment! 10.	Is anything off-topic? There is nothing that seems off-topic in this article. -Great. It is good to know that you do not think that anything is off topic. 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? The article seems to present all perspectives of the published literature that it was sourced from. -Thank you. 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No significant viewpoints seem to be left out from the article. -Thank you. Glad I didn't leave anything out. 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? ''The article presents a factual overview of the topic and descriptions of experiments. Little is presented in terms of opinion, so no point of view seems to be stressed.'' -That is correct. There was not a certain perspective or opinion taken by the author for this article. Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I do not believe there is an obvious perspective established from the author. -Thanks. The article is mostly based on facts and scientific findings. 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." ''The phrasing of the article seems neutral. No phrases stood out that lacked neutrality.'' -Thank you. 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." ''There are a few problem with this. The article describes unnamed and unsourced "extensive research" regarding short pathogen evolution time, and the experiment section is very non-specific in regards to the "researchers" it describes. I think listing a specific study, or stating the institution the researchers belonged to could easily correct this.'' -I will add this to the article. Thank you for addressing that. 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article does not focus extensively on positive or negative information. -That is true. There is not a certain point of view focused on this article. Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The beginning of the article is well-sourced with textbooks and journal articles, but the majority of the article lacks citation entirely. 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Only three sources are listed, but the sourced statements are well distributed, and don't lean excessively on a single point of view. -This is true. I just need to finishing listing all of my references and sources. There are several that I did not get to list uet. 20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! ''Sources are only used in the lead section. The rest of the article has no listed sources or references. The information seems to be drawn from source material, so this should be easy to correct.'' Scpavuluri (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC) -Thank you. I will make sure that I add the rest of my references and add who the researchers were so that the article can be understood better.