User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium/Logan.lgl723 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
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: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
The lead of the article provides information on the background of Bordetella avium and clearly outlines what the article will address. The lead is concise and straightforward but is still detailed enough to engage the reader.

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 of the article is well chosen and appropriate for the topic. One suggestion to enhance the article could be to remove the first 3 sentences of the Control and Treatment section and place them into the Epidemiology section as those sentences appear that they would be more appropriate under that heading. However, the content overall is detailed, does not seem to miss any key details and does not include unnecessary information not relevant to the topic.

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 tone of the article is neutral. The article overall is well balanced with regards to the content and view points.

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 claims in the article by the authors are backed up by numerous sources. The sources all seem to be appropriate for the information they support and the links seem to be in good working order. The sources used appear to be current and from reputable publications.

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
The article is well organized into the main sections with only minor overlap occurring between those sections. The article does not appear to have any obvious grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the article flows together well and is an engaging, easy read.

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 is one image used in this article of a turkey. The image used does not necessarily enhance the understanding of the article as it is just a image of a turkey; however, it does provide visually to the article. The image has an appropriate caption and appears to follow the copyright regulations of Wikipedia.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?