User talk:Dalastrascastrejon/Disease ecology

General: What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I like that you seem to define things very well but also include links to other Wikipedia articles in case readers aren’t quite sure what things mean. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? There are not really any images or visuals at all. This is helpful for someone like myself who is a visual learner. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I would include more visuals and write some captions or comments based on them, so readers can understand what is going on. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! This article is pretty well written because it is specific and clear definitions. Lead: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? I do not see a lead section so I am not sure if the first paragraph is the lead. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The first paragraph includes the most important, broad information that allows the reader to understand what is going on. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? I do not think anything is redundant in the lead/first paragraph. Content Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, and there is good information. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think so. Tone and Balance Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes. Are there viewpoints that are over- or under-represented? Yes. Sources and References Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, many sources were used. 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. Organization Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is pretty easy to read because a lot of definitions are clear and also there are good sub categories. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, you included subcategories and it was very useful to see what exactly you were talking about and when. Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I did not see any images. Are images well-captioned? N/a Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a Overall impressions Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the content added overall improved the quality of the article. What are the strengths of the content added? Everything was very specific and defined. I was not confused about what you were talking about. How can the content added be improved? Add more visuals.