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? The writing does not apply to the lead.
- 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 writing is about symptoms and diagnosis of HDV. It goes into the specifics of both acute and chronic infections that occur as a result of HDV.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, no old sources are used, all are up to date within that past few years, 2017 to present so information is up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content provided belongs.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content was neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No position was favored.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Information provided was balanced.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, content was not attempting to persuade of any position.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there were no primary sources used.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It appears so since they are national institutes for health which include as much information possible.
- Are the sources current? Yes, sources are up to date.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Exact known authors cannot be identified, but possibly there were use of diverse authors since they are health institutes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links work.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is well written for the most part. I would divide the following sentence into 2 sentences. "In 70-90% of people, HDV being superinfected with chronic HBV speeds up the process of getting cirrhosis, the severe stage of thickening of tissues in the liver due to scarring from HDV." the first sentence of the second paragraph should also be made into 2 sentences for better comprehension.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I am aware of.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the first paragraph is about symptoms and the second is about diagnosis for HDV.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No pictures were included.
- 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? Content is not pertaining to 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, symptoms and diagnosis are important for identifying an infection, and sometimes can be crucial so including the content added is helpful.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The content is well organized, starting with informing that there are 2 forms of infection and going to the specific symptoms of each.
- How can the content added be improved? Possibly end the diagnosis paragraph with why it might be important to get diagnosed, like if HDV cannot be cured, it would be helpful to get diagnosed.
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? The writing does not apply to the lead.
- 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 writing is about symptoms and diagnosis of HDV. It goes into the specifics of both acute and chronic infections that occur as a result of HDV.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, no old sources are used, all are up to date within that past few years, 2017 to present so information is up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content provided belongs.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content was neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No position was favored.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Information provided was balanced.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, content was not attempting to persuade of any position.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there were no primary sources used.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It appears so since they are national institutes for health which include as much information possible.
- Are the sources current? Yes, sources are up to date.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Exact known authors cannot be identified, but possibly there were use of diverse authors since they are health institutes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links work.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is well written for the most part. I would divide the following sentence into 2 sentences. "In 70-90% of people, HDV being superinfected with chronic HBV speeds up the process of getting cirrhosis, the severe stage of thickening of tissues in the liver due to scarring from HDV." the first sentence of the second paragraph should also be made into 2 sentences for better comprehension.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I am aware of.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the first paragraph is about symptoms and the second is about diagnosis for HDV.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No pictures were included.
- 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? Content is not pertaining to 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, symptoms and diagnosis are important for identifying an infection, and sometimes can be crucial so including the content added is helpful.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The content is well organized, starting with informing that there are 2 forms of infection and going to the specific symptoms of each.
- How can the content added be improved? Possibly end the diagnosis paragraph with why it might be important to get diagnosed, like if HDV cannot be cured, it would be helpful to get diagnosed.