User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium/Hayley.bowling 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? 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?
 * 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
There is no lead in the draft but in the "mainspace" article, I think the existing lead is quite good.

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 is relevant and up to date and I think it has a good amount of detail and depth for this audience.

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 content is neutral and not biased. Good work!

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 are thorough, current, and appear to be reliable. The links work from what I can tell.

Towards the end of the epidemiology section there is a direct reference to a primary source that is probably not ideal. I also don't know if extrapolating about the state of research in this area is a great idea for this audience although it would be important if this were a research paper. I think just saying something to the effect of "the epidemiology of this bacterium is not yet fully understood" would be sufficient to replace the last few sentences.

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
There are some minor grammatical and formatting errors, but it is just a draft so proofreading before going "live" might be beneficial. I think the sections included make sense and the organization is good, however I think adding some more subheadings within the sections would help readers find what they're looking for and would help with readability and to break up the walls of text a bit.

There are parts that I think could be more concise; for example I think the Epidemiology section has some filler as it is written more like a paper than a wikipedia article. I think it would help if some of the unnecessary "furthermore"s and "in addition"s and "as mentioned above"s were omitted just to tighten it up a bit.

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
There are no images or media.

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
N/A

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
I think you guys have done a good job of summarizing the important info so far. Nice job! :)