User:MicrobiologyKat2020/Epitope/MdMcAlister 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? MicrobiologyKat2020
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MicrobiologyKat2020/Epitope

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The content section has been updated, but the lead appears unchanged.
• 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? For the most part, yes. It doesn't mention epitope mapping.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The length seems right: two paragraphs, one short and the other slightly longer.

Lead evaluation:

Overall, the lead was already well-written. Your contributions came in the form of additional information, rather than rewriting and updating the whole article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Epitope mapping wasn't covered in the original article.
• Is the content added up-to-date? References range from 2009 to 2020, so yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I see.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not.

Content evaluation

The additional content adds useful information to the overall topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes. It does not advocate or endorse a particular position.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I see.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The information is presented objectively.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not.

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone matches the goals of Wikipedia, and the content is balanced and objective.

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. The sources include multiple reviews from different authors.
• Are the sources current? Yes. Publication dates range from 2009 to 2020.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Based on the last names, authors from multiple different regions of the world appear represented.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The sources back up the claims and provide additional information for readers who wanted more information.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The content is nicely readable.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The content is separated into three headings, one of which has two subheadings.

Organization evaluation

The added information fits into the prior structure of the article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

N/A

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? N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
• 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? N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the added information about epitope mapping makes this a stronger article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Well written, balanced, and appropriately referenced.
• How can the content added be improved? I would enjoy more information about epitope-based vaccines.

Overall evaluation

A strong and specific contribution to Wikipedia, taking an established article and expanding it with relevant and interesting information.