User:Billy.bmm020/Anaplasma bovis/Tory.yont 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: User:Billy.bmm020/Anaplasma bovis

Reviewing the tick borne disease, Anaplasma bovis completed by Billy.bmm020, Erika.macdonald, Katelynmcewen, Madison.myr484.

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 into the article briefly describes the content of the article. However, the article is not yet complete it seems; therefore it is probably easier to write the lead in once the article is completed. It also does not mention that treatment, diagnosis and prevention will be discussed, so it might be good to add in a brief description of that section, as well as the other main sections. Overall, the lead could use some more detail to let the reader know what will be covered, but overall, it is at a good starting point for the progress point of the article.

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 of the article appears to be up to date and relevant to the topic. However, it is still missing some main headings at this point such as, epidemiology. Overall though, the content is good and easy to follow. I do not notice any gaps in the information presented. I would also suggest providing the full name of organizations, such as the OIE, so the reader is aware of what you are talking about. Additionally, you could add a link to this word so the reader can click on it to get further information about the organization if needed. I would also suggest trying to get 5 references for each section, such as the diagnosis, treatment and prevention section. however, since this article is not yet complete, you may be adding those as I type this!

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 writing of this article is very easy to follow and understand. There is no bias and viewpoints are represented sufficiently. So far, it looks like a good start to 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 sources for this article are recent and up to date. The latest one is 2019, indicating the most recent information on Anaplasma bovis is included. I would suggest aiming to get 5 references in each section. The links that I checked were accessible and represented a diverse range of authors from peer reviewed articles as well as websites, such as Merck.

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 article is well organized and easy to follow. It starts with the history and background on Anaplasma bovis and then leads into the clinical aspect of it. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

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
Currently there are no photos in the article. I would suggest finding some relevant photos to help the reader further understand what they are reading.

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?

New Article Evaluation
There is an infobox present which is nice for the reader to easily access information about the bacteria. Currently, there are no links to other articles, so I would suggest adding some of them in.

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
This is a great start to the article! The layout of the article is good, and the information currently provided is insightful. My only suggestions would be to add some photos and links to your words, as well as adding some more headings like epidemiology.