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.
The lead includes good general information, and forms a good summary of the topic, however a lot of the information is not also in other sections. This could be fixed by creating a section on "diagnosis" for example, and maybe moving the info on maternal prophylaxis treatments to a treatment section.
Content
The content added definitely helps and adds more context. However, the info on maternal malaria feels off-topic. It might need to be re-written to connect more directly to congenital malaria or be left out of the article.The prevalance from the newer papers could be added, even if the reason for the discrepancy isn't found, because the more up-to-date information can be assumed to be better. As far as additions, a section on treatment or diagnosis could help fill out the article.
Tone
The tone feels properly neutral.
Sources
The sources look good, they are scientific articles, and seem in-date and reliable. The main question I have is why source 2 is cited for the first statement, as that old a paper isn't the best to cite inormation about the disease, and the historical claim is being cited from a different source.
Organization
Overall, the organization is great, it feels very easy to read. The biggest hangup is the paragraph on maternal malaria that feels a bit out of place.
