User:Angela.any431/Rickettsia typhi/Tegan.tcr517 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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing


 * Angela.any431/Rickettsia typhi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela.any431/Rickettsia_typhi

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
There is no Lead section added yet

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
-      The content that has been added is relevant to the topics outlined except for the Cell Characteristics section

o   Doesn’t tell me much about the cell characteristics except for the part about the motility which I think does fit well under this section

o   Includes stuff about genome, and methods of infection which I think would make more sense in a different section

-      There is a good balance of older articles from more than 5 years ago and articles from the last 5 years so I’m pretty confident that the content is up to date

-      I think that the history section could use a little bit more information about what typhus is (maybe some of the stuff from the epidemiology section could be moved there?) and how this organism was discovered

-      The Epidemiology section is super thorough and detailed and I like that there are links to other Wikipedia articles for some of the topics mentioned and I think that would be really good if implemented in other sections too

o   It does seem like it could be condensed a bit and some of the info belongs better in other sections

o   Maybe it could be limited to the demographics/risk factors and then some of the other stuff put into other sections

o   It did seem like it was starting to feel more like an article about murine typhus as opposed to the bacteria

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
-      I think you guys did a really good job keeping a neutral and unbiased tone

-      I didn’t feel like the article was trying to push a certain viewpoint or be persuasive, it’s just stating facts

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
-      There are current and older sources provided

-      The sources appear to be very thorough and from reliable sources

-      All of the new content is supported with references and a good portion of the article has multiple sources for each sentence, especially in the epidemiology section

-      The links that I tried were functional

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think it would make the most sense to have History and Epidemiology sections first followed by the Cellular Characteristics and Identification/Diagnosis sections afterwards.

Overall, everything is really well written and I didn’t notice any major spelling or grammatical errors, although I do think the epidemiology section could be a bit more concise.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images have been added yet

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'''Overall, I think you guys did an awesome job and contributed a lot of really good info to the article! I think it mostly just needs a little reorganization so things flow better and the epidemiology section can be pared down a bit and the other sections bulked up. You guys have lots of really good sources and have really detailed information with great writing. Keep up the good work!'''