User:MicrobiologyKat2020/Epitope/MdMcAlister Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? MicrobiologyKat2020
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MicrobiologyKat2020/Epitope
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The content section has been updated, but the lead appears unchanged.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part, yes. It doesn't mention epitope mapping.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The length seems right: two paragraphs, one short and the other slightly longer.
Lead evaluation:
[edit]Overall, the lead was already well-written. Your contributions came in the form of additional information, rather than rewriting and updating the whole article.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Epitope mapping wasn't covered in the original article.
- Is the content added up-to-date? References range from 2009 to 2020, so yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I see.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not.
Content evaluation
[edit]The additional content adds useful information to the overall topic.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes. It does not advocate or endorse a particular position.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I see.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The information is presented objectively.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone matches the goals of Wikipedia, and the content is balanced and objective.
Sources and References
[edit]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. The sources include multiple reviews from different authors.
- Are the sources current? Yes. Publication dates range from 2009 to 2020.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Based on the last names, authors from multiple different regions of the world appear represented.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources back up the claims and provide additional information for readers who wanted more information.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The content is nicely readable.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The content is separated into three headings, one of which has two subheadings.
Organization evaluation
[edit]The added information fits into the prior structure of the article.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
- 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
Images and media evaluation
[edit]N/A
For New Articles Only
[edit]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? N/A
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
- 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? N/A
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A
New Article Evaluation
[edit]N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the added information about epitope mapping makes this a stronger article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? Well written, balanced, and appropriately referenced.
- How can the content added be improved? I would enjoy more information about epitope-based vaccines.
Overall evaluation
[edit]A strong and specific contribution to Wikipedia, taking an established article and expanding it with relevant and interesting information.