User:Billy.bmm020/Anaplasma bovis/Hannah.hgs990 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Billy.bmm020, Erika.macdonald, Madison.myr484, Katelynmcewen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Billy.bmm020/Anaplasma bovis

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
The lead section has not yet been updated to reflect the content newly added by the group. Since I do not believe the article is complete yet, it would make more sense to complete the lead after all the content has been put onto the sandbox. It was a good idea to leave this task for the end!

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 added so far is relevant to the topic, and up-to-date. I appreciated the note that research is still being done on specific virulence factors of Anaplasma bovis. Upon completion of the assignment, the group members might consider keeping up to date with research and adding new information as it becomes available. When discussing clinical significance in species other than cattle, it might be worth noting whether the horse cleared the infection (and if so, how long it took to clear infection), or if the A. bovis infection was found to be fatal in the horse. Otherwise, all content is comprehensive and I do not notice any other gaps in content.

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
The current content is delivered in a neutral tone. No biases towards a particular viewpoint are apparent in the writing. The topic in itself is not contentious, and does not come across as so in the article.

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
The references used

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
The content is concise and written in clear English, making it easy to read for the general population. No grammatical or spelling errors were seen, but I would double check that A. bovis is italicized every time it is used in the "Transmission and Virulence Factors" section.

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
n/a

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 info-boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
Many secondary sources are used. The flow of the article so far is similar to others which are on a similar topic. It may be helpful to link this article to other articles, a couple examples might be "anaplasmosis", "cattle", "monocytes", and "OIE".

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
So far, the content added has made the article substantially more complete. I expect that, upon completion, the strengths will far outweigh any lacking areas. I would recommend the addition of images of the bacterium, and possible clinical signs of the disease to add visual appeal to the article. Excellent work so far!