User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium/Angela.acm672 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) Ashley.milne, Courtney.cem244, Jack.Jeg724, Jessica.jll885, Stevenovakowski
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium

Lead (Introduction)
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? I do not think so
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it deals with a bacteria that does not have a very full Wikipedia page yet and needed more information. Especially since this has clinical relevance to lots of bird species, information like this can help producers and pet owners get more informed which is awesome! There could be more information added about zoonoses, especially because there is a short section that explains that it could cause some disease in immuno-compromised people. If there is more information about this specifically, that would be great to add to the article!

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, it is just fact based and presents information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes lots of good sources
 * 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? They are scientific papers and seem to be good, peer reviewed sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? Not that I could see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It has a picture of a turkey, but not much else that adds to the information
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Sure.

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It is a good list! seems to have a lot of really good sources.
 * 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.

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? Lots of good information, informative about the characteristics and epidemiology. Good section about virulence as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? More information about zoonosis would be great, lots of people turn to Wikipedia for that kind of information so if it is zoonotic should be added in. There is a little bit of information, but expanding on that zoonotic aspect may help readers be a little more informed.