User:Stacyargueta/Allergy test/Vdeba001 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? stacyargueta
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stacyargueta/Allergy test

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There isn't a clear lead present.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There isn't a clear lead present.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There isn't a clear lead present.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There isn't a clear lead present.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There isn't a clear lead present.

Lead evaluation

There is no true lead section present. I feel a lead is important and would be nice to show the main points of the article.

Content

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

This is a scientific article explained in simple terms that is accessible to every type of audience. I feel like this is extremely important in websites like wikipedia where your average reader is not always a scientist. Very nice content and vocabulary overall.

Tone and Balance

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

Everything stated is pertinent and relevant to the topic. The tone is also very neutral with no specific points of view trying to persuade the reader, well done.

Sources and References

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

All sources used are reliable. Especially Mayo Clinic, very nice.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• 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

This is a scientific article explained in simple terms that is accessible to every type of audience. In addition, the sections are very well organized. They are all about the same length, with the most important being slightly longer.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
• Are images well-captioned? No images
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

Images and media evaluation

The article has no images. I feel like an image would greatly add to this article. A visual aspect is very important for maximum understanding.

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?

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?