User:Cjn2075/Rat-bite fever/Conradbolz 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)
 * Cjn2075
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Cjn2075/Rat-bite fever

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It has not been updated yet but already contains good content and likely better after the review.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it includes the pathology being described in the literature as well as the primary origin of the disease.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes the lead contains points and evidence that pertain back to the primary points of the article as well as adding new information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it pertains more descriptive points about the epidemiology of the disease.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Quite concise, it may have a few redundant points with the previous article but no new points were overly explained.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, very clear that this is an epidemiological description of Rat Bite Fever.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Their best source was the CDC website from last year, besides this source, one is from 2007 and 2011 but because of the understanding of the disease, these are still sufficient sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Good content but there may be some points that clash with pervious sections in the article. Mainly pertaining to the bacterial onset and the species of bacteria which is previously mentioned.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No. After reading the article I do not feel persuaded one way or another. The writer did not add any personal opinions.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it doesn't show political influence or financial gain by telling people this information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, factual and descriptive of rat bite fever.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints expressed had a great balance relating to their importance on the topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope, the article just provides information on the pathology stated.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some is and some isn't, a lot of information is very valid and fits in the section but just not referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources directly reflect the discussed topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are a around 10 years old but as stated earlier, the information is still valid and useful in the article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the sources were a diverse spectrum of authors with credibility to their study.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links I clicked on worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it is very concise and easy to read. Provides a clear description of the epidemiology of the disease.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can see or I noticed but would advise one last check before publishing.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it has good transitions also between the major topic points explained.

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?

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?
 * This addition of epidemiological information will greatly increase the well rounded completion of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The biggest strength by far is the relevance of information that the author provides on the topic. Great flow and easy to understand for readers looking for education on RBF
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * A lot of the given information is not sourced and us as readers have no idea where it comes from, better sourcing would fully complete this lead.