User talk:MProvenzano/Haemophilia/Maryxoxe Peer Review

Hey Mike. These are my article notes: -can add more information about the history of the disease especially in the Royal Family because it is very interesting and it shows how even royalty can be affected by this disease -the genetics section needs citations: there is a lot of information given with no source to prove the credibility and accuracy -citation needed for the signs and symptoms section -do some research to see if there are additional treatments -add more for gene therapy it seems very small in comparison with the other sections Maryxoxe (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Mary Xoxe

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Mike Provezano

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? he has not added any new content yet Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes the first sentence defines what hemophilia is 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 everything that is in the intro is in the article Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead offers a good amount of information Lead evaluation

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? no it all belongs Content evaluation

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no it is neutral Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? the gene therapy is underrepresented in comparison to the genetics section which gives a lot of information Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no Tone and balance evaluation

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? "Haemophilia, Blood Products and HIV Infection" is from 1987 the others seem to be from this decade Check a few links. Do they work? yes Sources and references evaluation

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? no Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes each topic has its own section Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes Are images well-captioned? some of the captions are very short Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Maryxoxe (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Mary Xoxe