User talk:Mitch Samco/sandbox

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? Mitch Samco Link to draft you're reviewing: Folate deficiency Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was not part of the revised subject. But that would be a good addition to the paper, if in the opening paragraph there were mentions of the new topics that you added.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does give a nice overview of what Folate deficiency is.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no mention of the topics that are going to be talked about in the lead. This, as I stated above, could be a good addition to your lead paragraph. Adding not only the extra sub topics the you added but also just adding the topics that were already in the paper that were not mentioned here.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not, as of right now the lead is a definition of the deficiency and a broad overview.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content that is added is very relevant, plus the extra topic about pregnancy was a good idea.

Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the information about the topics came from very recent studies, there were a couple that were a little older (2002, 2007) that you could possibly look into to see if they did any more research on the topic that may have came out recently. But other than that, lots of sources and lots of good content.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No all the content is very relevant, and not any huge gaps in information that I see.

Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? The content is very neutral and very factual based.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article is very balanced.

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 there are multiple sources, plus all of the sources are good reliable sources.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are very good and give lots of information on the topic.

Are the sources current? Yes for the most part, the only two that are a little out of date are 2007 and 2002.

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links worked.

Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content is well written, it is not too long and it gets right to the point.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors

No there are no grammatical errors.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the content that was added to the sections flows nicely, plus the section that was added to the end is in a good spot.

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? 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 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the article has lots more information than before, plus with some of the additions to preexisting sections it adds a better overall flow to the article.

What are the strengths of the content added? Addition of the whole new subsection was really important, because there was nothing on pregnancy before. And after reading the section people need to understand that this is a important aspect to pregnant women too.

How can the content added be improved? There is not much that I would say to improve on, it seems that you have a good grip on what the assignment is and you have plenty of sources and good additions. The only thing that could possibly be looked at is to see if there are any newer studies on a couple of the references but other than that it is a really good article with good revisions. Bartell98 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)