User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium/Alisha.alt047 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) Courtney.cem244, Ashley.milne, Jack.Jeg724, Stevenovakowski, Jessica.jll885
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Lead evaluation
The lead section of the article has not been done yet but the original article does have some content that could be expanded on to give a thorough overview/summary of the bacteria (ie. key points on control and treatment). There is also a page in the original lead, bordetellosis (highlighted red), that does not exist and should be updated.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it appears the article is still being updated.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Content evaluation
The content is focused at improving the original article and providing information to the reader about Bordetella avium. A suggestion for the current content presented would be to expand on the zoonosis aspect of this bacteria because the public is concerned about zoonosis. If there is risk of transmission individuals like to know to what extent and are worried about the negative outcomes that could arise, therefore adding some information about controlling transmission, prognosis and treatment for humans would be valuable information to the reader.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Their tone and balance for the article is good, it remains neutral with well represented viewpoints and does not argue a particular position or attempt to persuade the reader towards one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
There is a range of sources from different authors and dates. Although there is some articles older than 10 years there is also a number of recent articles that support their content. All links work but not all sources have open access for the public to evaluate, this is acceptable though. There is a citation, number 9, that has an error to "Check date values" (highlighted red) that should be corrected. That reference can be selected to manually enter the date because Wikipedia does not recognize the formatting.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written and would be appropriate for a wide range of audience. The current progression of this article is well organized. The headings and subheadings are logically placed and accessible from the table of contents.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
No images have been added.

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
The article is not new but the information added will strengthen the original article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation
This article's overall status is good because it addresses a current condition in Veterinary Medicine and would be of interest to individuals like producers. The article presents information clearly for individuals of varying backgrounds and has addressed important sections. Apart from the suggestions above I think this article is really coming along, good job!