User:Joewalbridge/Segmental arterial mediolysis/AEWieneke 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? Joewalbridge
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Segmental arterial mediolysis (original), User:Joewalbridge/sandbox (sandbox draft)
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
- 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? Some, not all.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and clear.
Lead evaluation Good job, clear and concise. Good additions to the existing page.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
Content evaluation Good content. My major recommendation would be to link to other wiki pages -- I would recommend doing this when possible as it’ll help make the article more “digestible.” For example, you can link to the Tunica Media wiki page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tunica_media) when describing the middle layer of the artery in the Mechanism section.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Tone and balance evaluation No concerns here.
[edit]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.
- Are the sources current? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
Sources and references evaluation Your citations are showing up as just numbers, but they do link out. Not sure if that's just a "sandbox" thing (it might be happening to my article too for all I know). But for the final draft, I would see if you can figure out how to the make the full citation visible in the bibliography, not just the number (e.g. [1]).
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, to all of that.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.
Organization evaluation Good job breaking it down by section. Makes it easily readable.
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media -- NOT APPLICABLE
- 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 I think linking to relevant wiki articles that do contain images is sufficient. For instance, linking to the Tunica Media page so readers can view images of the different artery layers. But I don't think you need to include those images in your specific article.
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. -- NOT APPLICABLE
- 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 NOT APPLICABLE
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added? Much more detailed information available with your revisions. The topic is more widely covered now than before, especially in terms of why it occurs.
- How can the content added be improved? As I said above, I think linking to other wikipedia pages would be beneficial to make your content more "digestable" to the average reader who is looking for more info but may not understand many of the concepts or words in this article. This will allow them to get the basic from those pages, then return to your article for further reading.