User:Courtney.cem244/Bordetella avium/Ttjjarrett 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 --- this is the sandbox // the article page is Bordetella avium

Lead
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? The lead is 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? No
 * 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? For the most part, there are a couple of wordings in some of the paragraphs that are maybe biased to the level of severity/ importance of the clinical disease
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No --- just phrasing can be biased, but the facts presented were accurate and cited
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It looked like there was maybe 5-6 primary sources; however, the rest of the information was either secondary/ textbooks/ websites
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, it appears most of the information are from sources newer than 2008+, there was one from 1996 but that appears to be the oldest
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not applicable
 * 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 - the flow from each section works really well - paragraphs are also written in comprehendible order
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There was one spelling mistake in the section labelled microbial characteristics [specie] - I think it should be species
 * 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? there is one image
 * Are images well-captioned? the image is captioned well
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes; however, more images could have been used

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? Yes - has industry websites/ veterinary websites/ textbooks/ reviews/ journal articles all 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? 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? The article compares to other complete articles on common bacteria like E. coli etc., where there is a good range of information presented.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They hit all the main topics needed to be discussed. The flow of the article was really nice, and the order of the headings was also in an order which made it easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the article could be improved by adding more images, just makes the flow of the article nicer. Also, in the control and treatment section, the couple sentences of the first paragraph goes over things more suitable in other sections (i.e. transmission/ how long the bacteria lives for etc). In that section I think the author could have gotten straight to the point and eliminated some of the excess information that could have been presented elsewhere -- but the rest of that section was done really well.

Overall evaluation
The article was really well done, I felt as though I gained a comprehensive understanding of Bordetella avium just from reading the wiki page. Each section was very well organized, and elaborated just enough for everything to make sense. Some sections were longer than others which I think was needed, because those sections had the most research done to elaborate on.