User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia/Pfowler17 Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? User:Kerrymonique
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- The content is still in the writer's sandbox.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes; there is a content box.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise
Lead evaluation: The lead is good. I don't think we need the language "In simple terms," because Wiki is expected to be written in "simple terms." I'm a little confused about the last line "(4th–7th decade of life)" as it doesn't have any context -- but to be fair it was something included in the original article, so it's not this editor's language. Does it mean these hernias don't typically occur until your 40s?[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes; sources from recent years.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Sure, but the writer is still working on it.
Content evaluation: Content is good; the sections make sense and flow well. The sections just need filling out.[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
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?
Tone and balance evaluation: No; given the topic of the article (a medical condition), the author doesn't seem to be persuading me to believe/think any certain way about the condition. Just a summary of facts.[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: Good. Lots of references from journals--some as recent as 2017. The "hernia" link (under the "Treatment" section) doesn't work, but all else is perfect.[edit]
Organization[edit]
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?
Organization evaluation: As stated above, all the sections make sense/are organized thoughtfully. No spelling errors. Some sentences are phrased a bit awkwardly** but overall, content is good.[edit]
** "...and sometimes discomfort can be confused by its anatomical region for a peptic ulceration."
Possibly rephrase to "and sometimes, because of the location of the discomfort, doctors mistake the hernia for a peptic ulceration." -- or something of the like.
Images and Media[edit]
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?
Images and media evaluation: No additional images are added in the Sandbox draft, but the article already has images, so I think that's fine.[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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?
New Article Evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
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?