User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium/ACrookes 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)
 * Jessica.jll885, Stevenovakowski, Jack.Jeg724, Ashley.milne, Courtney.cem244
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has at least one sentence that reflects each section and all added content. Good work!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I feel that the first sentence of the Lead concisely indicates the article topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, each major section is represented.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Nope!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel its concise and easy to read, containing the right amount of information as a primer for the article. Overall, I'm very satisfied with the Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the information added is on topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Based on what I can tell, the article reflects current knowledge.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nope!
 * 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, I feel there is nothing in the article that is meant to be persuasive.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The material is objective in nature, with no opinions given.
 * 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?
 * The sources appear to be a mix of primary and secondary. Ideally, you could add more secondary sources. However, given the subject matter I feel you likely have utilized as many secondary sources as were available.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think they reflect a modest amount of the literature. It is certainly not exhaustive, but given the scale and scope of the article I feel it is sufficient.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Mixed, some are very current while others are dated. You may want to consider updating the old references if new information is available.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there are a few repeat authors. However, they are the exception, not the rule in this case. Good work!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links are working great!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Generally yes, occasionally some of the information is redundant. You may want to correct any redundancies.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Appeared good to me.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections flow together well!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Marginally at best, the only picture, a turkey, is helpful in recognizing the main species impacted but offers little else in terms of improving understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes - They were provided by one of the primary authors. Cool!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

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, there are more than 3 reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I would not describe it as exhaustive. Rather, it is a reasonable sampling of the literature available on the subject. Likely, it is close to exhaustive when considering secondary sources alone.
 * 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, it does so very well!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I think it is much improved.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * They are well laid out and follow a logical format. It convers the vital information well and would give the average reader a reasonable understanding of the subject. It could have more added, but given the constraints associated with a student project I feel t is adequate.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the most important thing that could be done to improve the article would be to carefully review the article for any redundant information. Occasionally the article repeats itself unnecessarily. This would help make the article more concise and easy to read.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I really enjoyed the article and feel you guys did a great job. It can be challenging when several members are writing independent sections to make the article cohesive and enjoyable to read, I think you all succeeded at it! Good work :)