User:Barnor Senrab/1976 Zaire Ebola virus outbreak/Hvonruden13 Peer Review

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? (Barnor Senrab)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: 1976 Zaire Ebola virus outbreak

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?

Lead evaluation

• I would recommend focussing on the Epidemiology section of this page rather than adding content to background
• The intro to the epi section is well worded and concise. It gets to the point in a formal manner and gives the reader a good introduction to the topic.

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?

Content evaluation

• The content section is really well put together and has a lot of information. I would recommend revising to remove filler statements or information that does not belong in the Epi section.
• I like your range of sources. The first two are relevant and recent in terms of publication. I would recommend taking a look at a more recent source than your 1978 source to find similar information that is more recent.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

• I think your content is neutral and informationally placed into your writing.
• I like how you reference specific people and the studies they conducted within the article to add to your credibility.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

• All of the sources seem to be reliable and the provided links work.
• I would recommend again trying to find a more recent article with relevant information that was published more recently than 1978 just to increase reliability in the information.

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?

Organization evaluation

• I think the overall organization is really well thought out and it separates thoughts clearly.
• The research study adds sufficient support to the points addressed in the article.

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

• N/A

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

• N/A

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?

Overall evaluation

• Overall i think this addition will be beneficial to the already existing article. The epidemiology section that is already published is already substantial, but this new information is important to note. My overall suggestion would be to re-read your draft for unnecessary statements to minimize them and work on more up to date references.