Jump to content

User:MicrobiologyKat2020/Epitope/MdMcAlister 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 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:

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

The additional content adds useful information to the overall topic.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Sources and References

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Organization

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Images and Media

[edit]

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

[edit]

N/A

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? 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

[edit]

N/A

Overall impressions

[edit]

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

[edit]

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