User:Purplesquire/Herpesviral meningitis/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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Purplesquire

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

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead
- Your lead section is definitely improved compared to the original article.
- It's clear and concise without jumping around from topic to topic.
- There is a little bit of information in the lead (at the end) that isn't mentioned in the article.
- The lead section doesn't exactly tell where the article is going to go but that's really hard to do with a medical article like this.
  - What could be done is just a small mention of what's in your sections in the lead, then expand on them in the actual sections.
Content
- I think your content is good so far. It's up to date and all of it is relevant to your topic.
Tone and Balance
- In my opinion there's not much you can really do with tone and balance is medical articles, because mainly everything is a neutral tone already so you're good on that as well.
- Everything's very neutral and there's no sides taken.
Sources and References
- Your sources are mainly up to date (there are a couple nearing or at 10 years old but I understand that, sometimes you need to use older articles).
- For your second source ( "Herpes Simplex Type-2 Meningitis: Presentation and Lack of Standardized Therapy" ) you need to add in a date, it did that to some of my articles too you can just edit it and add it in.
- The sources seem like they're good journal articles, they accurately reflect the content of the articles your citing, and they seem thorough.
- Article links do work.
Organization
- I think the article would make a little more sense if you moved the recurrent HSV meningitis after treatment just because you list the symptoms early on in the lead section then go on to describe the rest of the section.
- The first sentence after the lead reads as a run on sentence, the first sentence can end at the comma with the rest of the sentence acting as its own.
- I think it's broken down well though.
Images and Media
- You don't have any and that's fine neither do I.
Overall Impressions
- Yes the article is more complete now, its more fleshed out and has new information in it that makes the quality of the article goes up.
- The content would be improved if you went into the statistics a little more in its own section and then kind of expand on your treatment section.