User:Lilsunchip/Monoarthritis/MyDogsBestie 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?

Lilsunchip

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilsunchip/Monoarthritis
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Monoarthritis

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead Section
- The lead section of your article so far does describe the content of your article because it gives a couple causes and then goes into the actual causes section.
- The lead section is more of a lead sentence, it doesn't go into too much detail so it is concise and to the point. I do think it can be expanded upon (i.e. adding some statistics, going into the diagnostic tools, etc.)
Content
- The content that was added is relevant to the topic and up to date.
- The treatment section is missing but that's understandable for a draft.
Tone and Balance
- The tone is neutral, and there's no taking sides anywhere in the article.
Sources and References
- For your second and fourth sources, you need to add a date its super easy to do just find it in your article and then hover over one of your [2] and [4] and hit the "Edit" button then find the date and put it in YYYY-MM-DD.
- Your 4th source, when clicking the link brings up a Page Does not Exist error, but i was able to find it with some digging around.
- Sources aren't super current (the one is from 1998, but I get using older articles) but two out of four are pretty current.
- But other than that, the sources are current, thorough, and the content accurately reflects the articles given.
Organization
- The organization of the article is good, the lead section details the causes and it pretty much follows that quite well.
Images and Media
- There aren't any but that's okay mine doesn't have any either.
Overall Impressions
- The article is pretty good in my opinion, it's definitely improved.
- I do think that you can add a section in on say the statistics and expand on the treatments section, that'd be super cool to see.
- I noticed you rewrote most of the causes and i think that's a big improvement because the ones before had no sources, no reputable claims, just what seems to be unsourced opinion.