User:Radtkejk/Labyrinthitis/Maddieswenson18 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? (provide username) Radkejk
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Labyrinthitis

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it is well updated and gives good background information.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, they introduce what labyrinthitis is, and what it is most commonly known as well as an introduction to some of the signs, symptoms, etc.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, as stated above they do provide some introductory information about each of the major sections that they cover later on in the page.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? At the end of the Lead section, they do add information that is epidemiological data, but they don't provide and epidemiology section elaborating more on that information.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is a little over detailed, but it's very well written. Just try to cut out main data points and just introduce each section and then all of the data that is in the lead section can be added to the other main sections.

Lead evaluation

The overall lead section is very good, as I stated above under each question is that the only thing that I would change is the amount of hard data and numbers are in the lead section. I would just introduce those ideas in the lead section and try to keep all raw data in your other main sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, they did a very good job at adding relevant data
• Is the content added up-to-date? It seems that most of there references are from recent years, with a few that are very old. But, overall I think they did a good job of only adding current data
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation-

The content is up to date and seems to be very thorough. All the information needed to explain what the topic is is included, so

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, they present the data without adding any of their own opinion
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all of the viewpoints are very neutral
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, again the content is neutral

Tone and balance evaluation-

The tone and balance was very good, all of the data was presented in a neutral tone. Nothing was presented with any type of bias.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they have a lot of studies as sources as well as references from other medical journals that helped back up the studies that they used.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they refer to multiple studies within the article
• Are the sources current? - yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes, most of them have doi's so when you click on that it brings you to the source, and the ones that don't I was just able to copy and paste them into a new tab.

Sources and references evaluation

They had a lot of sources and references, some of them were older, but the majority of them were current and accurate.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article was organized really well. The sections were organized and the content within the sections were well-written and all flowed together.
• 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, they are broken down into sections and the content added are worded very well.

Organization evaluation-

Overall, it is organized well and the whole article flows well and is not choppy

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? They only have one image, and to me it only slightly helps me understand the topic better
• Are images well-captioned? It is captioned, but it has very random captions under it, some stats but there is no context with the data.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, it's at the very beginning of the article and doesn't disrupt the look of the article.

Images and media evaluation

I would try to add pictures later on it in the article, maybe if you can find one that has can relate to the signs, symptoms, or cures?

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? yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 21 sources, and since there is a lot of sources it did represent the data well.
• 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? Yes, it represents a lot of similar articles.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are a lot of links that lead you to different pages.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I have never heard of this topic before but I was able to understand and learn about the topic a lot.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It is very well worded and flows nicely. And they give good information that can be used by the general public, in an easy and understandable way.
• How can the content added be improved? I would take that added data out of the lead section and incorporate it into each individual section. Also, I would add an epidemiology section.

Overall evaluation

Very good article, it was easy to understand and factual. Overall, I think there's just a few things that can be changed to make it even better!