User:Daisylampkin/Whooping cough/Origi.caity Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Daisylampkin

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whooping_cough&diff=prev&oldid=1248558541
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Whooping cough

Evaluate the drafted changes

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

This article seems to be neutral with no indications of bias.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think the viewpoints are represented well. The information is thorough and provides as much context and examples as needed to get the point across.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links work very well, leading me to reliable sources that provide the correct type of information needed for this article. Especially since whooping cough is a dangerous disease that requires information that is not misleading.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

There are a lot of sources listed and of course I cannot check every single one of them, but the one you added appeared to be very reliable, providing information about

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

All the sources are relevant and up to date. The only thing that throws me off is the type of information that you provided being stats from nearly 300 years ago. While that is important to have an idea of how devastating this disease can be, I think if you provided a snippet about more recent events, that would emphasize to people that it can still be devastating even if the numbers are low now compared to 300 years ago.

Other notes

Overall, I think your edit provided a piece of historical information that is relevant but more information on more recent cases could be relevant as well.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your feedback. I went back and added a little more information that link back to more recent cases. I did not see it from that perspective, thank you again.