User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli/Jessica.jll885 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? Morgan.kelley123, ACrookes, Amanda.amc513, Dixon.alexa, Ttjarrett
• 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
• 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? could include some of the history in the intro
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

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? no
• 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 - lots of sources!
• Are the sources current? there are a few that are quite old (1967, 1980, 1986, 1987) but most are current
• 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? yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, the zoonotic potential section could be a bit more concise
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? very minimal and as this is still a draft they may not have been caught yet
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, however i think it would make sense to have the history section first and to add a section about any treatments avaliable for the disease

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? yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes, they are placed in the sections that make most sense

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? there are lots of sources, very good!
• 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, some sections don't link to other articles which might be helpful

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? absolutely, there is a good amount of info about the bacteria
• What are the strengths of the content added? Most of the sections are concise and clear making the article easy to read, follow, and understand. I really like how the disease section has been split up by species. I liked the inclusion of the history section, it was interesting to find out how long the bacteria has been studied.
• How can the content added be improved? I think it would make the article flow a little better to put the history section first otherwise the section order is great! A section that talks about control/treatment would have been beneifical to understand a bit more about the bacteria. I think the zoonotic potential section could be a bit shorter and more concise, it is a bit overpowering to the article because it is significantly longer than other sections.

Overall evaluation

The article is well done, it covers a good basis for the bacteria and was easy to follow and understand. It would be nice to have some info on control/treatment to make it a well rounded article or even just a brief statement in one of the sections if there is no known treatments.