User:K8-25/1993 Milwaukee Cryptosporidiosis outbreak/Mell4143 Peer Review

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? K8-25
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:K8-25/1993 Milwaukee Cryptosporidiosis outbreak

Feedback (also found in draft talk page):

Hi K8-25, I reviewed your article draft for ENPH 450. It looks like you have a good start. The lead section is concise; it is a good summary, it is not too wordy or vague. The epidemiology section doesn't have any citations added, but I saw that you had them listed so you'll probably do that later. The sources were legitimate and appropriate for a Wikipedia article, so that's good. The only thing that I would probably suggest adding are statistics to the epidemiology section. For example, you mention a financial, social, and economic burden, can you quantify this? Is there data out there on the number of people who have died because of this outbreak?

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
• 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? somewhat
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? could include numbers to explain the outbreak
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? not sure. Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? not sure

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? it is neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, but be sure to cite all the material added in the article
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
• Are the sources current? yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? not sure Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? not sure
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? some, but they are an easy fix
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, but it will look more organized once the draft is completed.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
• Are images well-captioned? no, it needs a caption
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes