User talk:Thompsok3094/sandbox

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Thompsok3094 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Thompsok3094/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? '''The lead in this peer review is interesting since I'm not sure where they are planning on putting this draft into the actual wikipedia article. If this is going into the Epidemiology section, I think that it is a great update to the lead, however if it is updating the main original lead to the hyperthermia article, I do not think it is adequate.''' Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead has a nice introductory sentence, that is concise and clear. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's main sections. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Some of the information is repeated from the 'causes' section in the original article, however the new lead goes into more depth. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and has the right amount of detail if it is going into the epidemiology section. Lead evaluation

'''Overall there needs to be clarification as to where this article is going within the wikipedia article, and it is difficult to judge this section until it is understood where it is going. ''' Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is definitely relevant to the topic. Is the content added up-to-date? The content has some good, up-to-date sources. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content there seems to be good descriptive epidemiology and works well with the article. Content evaluation

'''Maybe include a more global perspective and some statistics regarding overall prevalence and incidence to improve the overall quality of the article. ''' and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, claims seem to be based on good, peer reviewed sources. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? '''The American point of view is very overrepresented. There is no talk of hyperthermia globally.''' Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation

Good tone and balance.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? '''Yes, the information is coming from good sources. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, these source come from a range of time frames and quality, reputable publishers.''' Are the sources current? Yes, they have some current sources, although one is from 1938, and this should be updated most likely, although it is a good source, more current information is definitely necessary. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation

Good sources overall, I would rethink the source from 1938 however.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? '''Yes, flows well, is concise and clear. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not many, I would read it over to catch one or two some wording issues.''' Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? '''Yes, well organized for an epidemiology section. Consider different headings that are more professional however, like 'Geography' for where, or 'Causes' for how.''' Organization evaluation Consider if the 'how' section is necessary, the original article already has a causes section in it that repeats a lot of the information you provided. Images and Media- NO IMAGES OR 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

A picture may be of use here. Maybe a map with some epidemiological data?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It has definitely improved the epidemiology section. What are the strengths of the content added? '''The content is more detailed, provides good background information, and How can the content added be improved? Update that older source, consider if causes is necessary, as the original article already has a causes section, and provide more statistics regarding the epidemiology.''' Overall evaluation

It was good, concise, and provided quality information, however it could use some re-evaluating in terms of older sources, more specific data concerning epidemiology, and making sure original content is added that is not already present in the original article.