User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli/Jaskaran.purba 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? Ttjjarrett, ACrookes, Dixon.alexa, Amanda.amc513, Morgan.kelley123
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, and you can also include a brief pathology Brachyspira causes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, however; a bit of history can be added in there
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The length is short. History and Pathology can be added in a brief form.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, edits were made fairly recently,
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Perhaps Epidemiology can also be included
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article presents an overall concise summary!

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, there is no bias present
• 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, as most are publications
• Are the sources current? Yes, most of them at least.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
• Check a few links. Do they work? All of them work

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly yes; however the first paragraph can be shortened as it is very wordy.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!

Images and Media

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? Yes!
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Hopefully, yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are very appealing

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?
• 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is definitely reaching final stages of completion!
• What are the strengths of the content added? It has a logical flow to it, and is in neutral and understandable tone for a member of general public to understand.
• How can the content added be improved? The Zoonotic potential section can shortened and made less wordy.