User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis/Carling.cas365 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? Eelgersma, Ellie.eld885, Kelsey.brandt, Kiran.kef073, Michelle.mge790
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis

Lead

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? Yes, however I think it could be more concise. There are too many specific details in the lead, that I think should be included in the content instead
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. There is specific information about zoonotic risk, and antimicrobial resistance which is not found in the article. I think this info should be moved to the content, to make the lead more concise.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed. I think the extra material should be cut out, so it is providing a general overview of the bacteria, and not delving into specifics.

Content

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? Yes
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• 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

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
• Are the sources current? Not all. Some sources are from late 90's - early 2000's, and many other sources are more than 10 years old. However, a large proportion of the sources are current
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Sources are from a variety of scientific review papers, primary papers and reliable online resources.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links worked

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? In some parts, the content is overly wordy. Words like "thus" and "will", and "whereas" are unnecessary ( example - paragraph 2 of cell morphology, it would be more concise to say "it forms" rather then "it will form")
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, spelling and grammar all look good!
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think the sections and headings are appropriate for the topic, and it is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. There are no images included in the article. I think that adding an image in the cellular morphology may be a nice addition.
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, the source list is quite exhaustive.
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content is well researched and well detailed in a complete and easily readable manner.
• How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by small adjustments in the wording, and a better organization of facts (ie, move facts and details to the content, and not in the lead)