User:CurtisEmery/Oral microbiology/Myeverything5 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. This is possibly due to the fact that the original article’s lead is sufficient enough and meets the editor’s standards. The original lead includes an introductory that is concise and straight to the point. It clearly describes what oral microbiology is, its location, and its interactions. The lead does include a brief description of the article’s major sections. The lead includes that pH is one of the factors that are affected by microbial colonization, however, it does not go into depth in the article. The original lead is a little bit overly detailed. One way the original lead could be improved is to not include the different species of anaerobic bacteria in the oral cavity because it seems to be already included under the subheading “Oral microflora.” Overall, for the most part the original lead was well written.

Content

Yes, the content that has been added is relevant to the topic. The content that was added explained the ecological sites for oral microbiota more in depth. Furthermore, the editor has included signs and symptoms of oral bacterial infections which were not included in detail in the original article. In addition, the editor included new information on holistic prevention of oral bacterial infections which was also not mentioned in the original article. The added content will benefit and complement the original article very well. The content that was added is up to date because the years that the journal articles that were used to edit the article ranged from 2011 to 2019. The article would benefit from the inclusion of non holistic treatment methods and options to treat these microbial oral infections. The original article appears to have no equity gaps because it does address women and children. Overall, the content that was added to the original is relevant and helpful towards improving the article.

Tone and Balance

The content that was added was neutral. There were not any claims that appeared to be heavily biased toward a particular position. The viewpoint was presented in an equal and neutral manner, not being overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not really persuade the reader to choose one option more than the other. However, since the inclusion of holistic prevention was included, it may be beneficial to include holistic treatments as well as non-holistic prevention and treatment methods. This way, the reader is not convinced or falsely informed that the holistic approach is the only prevention method that is available and is effective. This does not necessarily persuade the reader to favor one prevention method over the other, however, it might mislead certain individuals who are not well aware of the topic. Overall, this edit of the article was written in a neutral tone, was not biased and did not over present or under-represent the information.

Sources and References Section

All the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The secondary sources that were used to add the new content appear to be peer-reviewed journal articles which are usually considered valid and reliable sources of information. Considering that these sources are peer-reviewed articles, the editor did a good job in finding beneficial sources. The sources are current because they were written in 2019, 2020, 2005, and 2011. Since these sources are relatively recent, they can be considered current sources. After checking all of the links, the links do work. The sources were written by a diverse spectrum of authors, and the authors were different for each journal article. The sources from which the new information was obtained mostly focused on different topics other than microbiology however, the new information is focussed on oral microbiology infections, and stays on topic. Overall, the sources that were used to add new information to the article are considered to be good sources.

Spelling and grammar

There were no major general spelling and grammar errors.