User:Maddi Haraway/Sahachiro Hata/Tdeppong 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?

Maddi Haraway

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Maddi Haraway/Sahachiro Hata
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Sahachiro Hata

Evaluate the drafted changes

I think you have done a really nice job adding information to the Sahachiro Hata article, which was pretty sparse before you started working on it. In particular, I think you maintain a very neutral tone throughout your writing, and do not display any bias in how you are describing these events. One question I had was regarding the biography section -- where did this information come from? I think it could benefit the article to add a citation to support where you got that information.

There were a couple of areas in the article that I thought could use some more explanation. The first is the "Plague Prevention Law." I'm not sure exactly what that is, so I think it could be good to either add a little explanation or link to the Wikipedia page for that Law if there is one. While I was reading, I was wondering what all was included in the Law that Hata developed. I think the same could be said for the discussion of the "magic bullet." I could assume that meant they were trying to develop a treatment for Syphilis, but it may benefit the article to just explicitly say that, since it could also be referring to a preventative treatment. "Magic Bullet" may be widely known to mean treatment, but I didn't know it was that until reading the end and it could make it a bit more clear to be explicit about that when you mention it for the first time.

Regarding organization, I think you have done a really nice job at breaking up your article into sections. In fact, after reading yours, I went back to mine and changed how I organized it to make it more clear. That said, I did have a couple suggestions for making the organization more clear. In the Plague Research section, it seems like the last sentence is a bit off-topic when it mentions him travelling to China. If he did plague research there, it would be good to add that in to make that information match the section it is under. Similarly, I think the 'Magic Bullet' section begins with some information that is not related to Sahachiro Hata. The background information about Syphilis does not seem necessary in this section, since it is focusing on Hata's work in the development of a cure. I think it may benefit your work to delete the first few sentences, and start that section off with the sentence where you begin talking about Sahachiro Hata (In 1909, Sahachiro Hata...).

Overall, I think you did a really great job on your article. In particular, I like the addition of the photos as it makes the article more visually appealing. I also think you did a nice job at discussing the importance of Hata's work on Syphilis and how it laid the groundwork for antibiotic research to be done afterward. Really nice job on the article!