Jump to content

User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia/Pfowler17 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

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?
[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?

Overall evaluation: The writer has added significantly to Signs and symptoms, Diagnosis and Treatment--citing academic sources. Great work so far.

[edit]