This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Mightychondrias
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mightychondrias/expanding draft
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - This content is not for a lead section
- 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?
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The content is focused on the different symptoms and infections a person might experience from Hepatitis D infection. It also talks about the strategy of testing for the virus in an infected person. Both of these topic are very relevant to the Hepatitis D virus.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes. All of the sources seem to be recent sources, so the information is up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think the content presented is good. I think the only thing that could be added is a list of examples of the more severe symptoms of acute HDV infection that are referenced to in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, but the information isn't really focused on any populations or groups. There is no mention of any sort of specific population in the content.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the information is presented in a very neutral tone.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No. I did not feel any bias towards any sort of position when reading this.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I feel that nothing was overrepresented in any way. If anything was underrepresented, it might be the HDV testing paragraph. However, I am not sure what else could be added in that paragraph so I think that the topics are represented the right amount.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No. There is no information in the content that feels to be persuading anyone of anything.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes. The sources are all very reliable and are not primary studies done by individual scientists.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes. Due to the fact that these sources are government or health institution sites, it can be inferred that the information must be correct and thorough.
- Are the sources current? - Yes the sources are very current and contain up to date information.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - The sources mainly come from government or health institution sites so it is not known the individual authors of the work. Therefore, we can't know about diversity of the original authors, but there is a good use of different institutions.
- Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, the links work.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes. The content was clear and to the point. It was very informative on the topics of Hepatitis D infection symptoms and testing. The only sentence I might rephrase is the first sentence in the second paragraph. The sentence reads : "Those who show the various symptoms of Hepatitis D, frequently inject drugs, live in the same house as someone with Hepatitis D, tested positive for the surface antigen of Hepatitis B (HBsAg), or frequently comes in contact with body fluids should be considered for Hepatitis D testing." The "comes" in this sentence should be changed to "come" and I think the sentence could be worded better. It makes sense but it takes a few times to read it to really understand what it is saying. Therefore, I think it could be helpful to consider rewording this sentence so it flows more smoothly.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No, just the "come" instead of "comes" I listed above.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes. I feel like the content was well organized and flowed pretty well. The first paragraph is focused on different symptoms of Hepatitis D infection and the second is focused on testing.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - This content does not include any images
- 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?
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? - This draft is not a new article
- 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?
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, i think this information will make the article more complete. It is important to talk about symptoms and testing of HDV when talking about the virus, so I think this information only strengthens the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? - The content is organized, and is very relevant to the HDV article. It is easy to read and has a nice flow to it. There are only a few minor details that could be changed to improve this information even more.
- How can the content added be improved? - I think a few things could maybe be added to the content to make it even stronger. First, I think that stating the more severe symptoms of acute HDV infection would be helpful. At the end of the sentence listing acute HDV infection symptoms, it says "or more severe and sudden forms of acute HDV symptoms." What are these more severe forms of HDV symptoms? I think it would strengthen the article by listing them.
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Mightychondrias
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mightychondrias/expanding draft
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - This content is not for a lead section
- 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?
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The content is focused on the different symptoms and infections a person might experience from Hepatitis D infection. It also talks about the strategy of testing for the virus in an infected person. Both of these topic are very relevant to the Hepatitis D virus.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes. All of the sources seem to be recent sources, so the information is up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think the content presented is good. I think the only thing that could be added is a list of examples of the more severe symptoms of acute HDV infection that are referenced to in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, but the information isn't really focused on any populations or groups. There is no mention of any sort of specific population in the content.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the information is presented in a very neutral tone.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No. I did not feel any bias towards any sort of position when reading this.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I feel that nothing was overrepresented in any way. If anything was underrepresented, it might be the HDV testing paragraph. However, I am not sure what else could be added in that paragraph so I think that the topics are represented the right amount.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No. There is no information in the content that feels to be persuading anyone of anything.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes. The sources are all very reliable and are not primary studies done by individual scientists.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes. Due to the fact that these sources are government or health institution sites, it can be inferred that the information must be correct and thorough.
- Are the sources current? - Yes the sources are very current and contain up to date information.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - The sources mainly come from government or health institution sites so it is not known the individual authors of the work. Therefore, we can't know about diversity of the original authors, but there is a good use of different institutions.
- Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, the links work.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes. The content was clear and to the point. It was very informative on the topics of Hepatitis D infection symptoms and testing. The only sentence I might rephrase is the first sentence in the second paragraph. The sentence reads : "Those who show the various symptoms of Hepatitis D, frequently inject drugs, live in the same house as someone with Hepatitis D, tested positive for the surface antigen of Hepatitis B (HBsAg), or frequently comes in contact with body fluids should be considered for Hepatitis D testing." The "comes" in this sentence should be changed to "come" and I think the sentence could be worded better. It makes sense but it takes a few times to read it to really understand what it is saying. Therefore, I think it could be helpful to consider rewording this sentence so it flows more smoothly.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No, just the "come" instead of "comes" I listed above.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes. I feel like the content was well organized and flowed pretty well. The first paragraph is focused on different symptoms of Hepatitis D infection and the second is focused on testing.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - This content does not include any images
- 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?
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? - This draft is not a new article
- 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?
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, i think this information will make the article more complete. It is important to talk about symptoms and testing of HDV when talking about the virus, so I think this information only strengthens the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? - The content is organized, and is very relevant to the HDV article. It is easy to read and has a nice flow to it. There are only a few minor details that could be changed to improve this information even more.
- How can the content added be improved? - I think a few things could maybe be added to the content to make it even stronger. First, I think that stating the more severe symptoms of acute HDV infection would be helpful. At the end of the sentence listing acute HDV infection symptoms, it says "or more severe and sudden forms of acute HDV symptoms." What are these more severe forms of HDV symptoms? I think it would strengthen the article by listing them.