User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis/Catherine.beaupre 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? Eelgersma, Ellie.eld885, Kelsey.brandt, Kiran.kef073, Michelle.mge790
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis on Oct. 14th,15th 2020

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:
This article is still needing a lead section. Consider including a list of the taxonomic breakdown of the bacteria in a table, as this is something I often find I look for when browsing on Wikipedia. Some possible suggestions for information to include in the lead section are:

-a general overview of characteristics of the bacteria (e.g. gram-positive coccoid or filamentous rod)

-the main disease it causes (Caseous lymphadenitis)

-who it infects (small ruminants, cattle, horses)

-other notable points of its pathogenesis and treatment.

It may be helpful to think of the lead section like an abstract. If a reader was only to view the lead section, what would be the major points you'd want them to walk away knowing about C. pseudotuberculosis?

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:
Cellular Morphology, Biochemistry and Identification:

This section reads very well! What are excellent was to start your article on C. pseudotuberculosis. It is great to present some general information about the bacteria itself befogging diving into the other content you've included. It would be very helpful to have all of the biochemical testing information if you came across C. pseudotuberculosis in the lab and wanted to pursue further testing and weren't sure where to start! I'm sure lots of budding microbiologists will appreciate this when they come across it!

There is a strange formatting issue at the end of the first paragraph with fimbria and bacteriology in brackets.

There are a few terms which could maybe be stated more simply for the general reader including: metachromatic volutin granules, Albert's or Neisser's Method (link these maybe?), biovar, API Coryne system.

Clinical Signs:

I love that this is broken down by disease in the animal species, it makes logical sense and would be very useful if I was looking on Wikipedia for specific info on cattle for example. Consider adding the general info, i.e. "C. pseudotuberculosis causes a disease known as Caseous lymphadenitis..." before the disease in small ruminants sections begins. Consider adding in more hyperlinks to other wikipedia pages on topics such as: pyogranulomatous abscess formation, superficial lymph nodes, ulcerative lymphangitis.

Diagnosis:

If testing and diagnosis is difficult, how would one approach this as a veterinarian suspecting C. pseudotuberculosis? Is there anything in the Merck Vet Manual that might help add to this section? How would one take an abscess sample or biopsy? Could you link to these resources? I would try to highlight biopsies as being the most useful diagnostic tool more. Consider adding the word "clinical," signs after the word vague in the first sentence. Also consider expanding on or linking what a "double antibody sandwich ELISA is."

Pathogenesis/Virulence:

This section was great, I thoroughly understood the importance of the virulence factors as playing a role in disease by the bacteria (especially as someone who cringes at molecular biology). Consider hyperlinking plasmid, phospholipase D, Sphyngomylein and mycelia acid. Is there any evidence that the other virulence factors identified also play a significant role in disease?

History, Epidemiology and Zoonotic Risk:

Add a link to Corynebacterium genus. Does Caseous Lymphadenitis need to be capitalized? This is inconsistent throughout the article. Does raw product refer to meat product at the end of the last paragraph? Consider clarifying.

Treatment/Antimicrobial Resistance:

Could you also break the treatment down by species - This might be helpful on a quick initial Wikipedia search? A great explanation of antimicrobial resistance! Is there anything useful in the Merck Vet Manual to add here? Is there any information of herd management you could link here? Are animals usually culled, quarantined etc.? If I am a producer in Western Canada do I need to vaccinate/prevent this infection?

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 presented in the article is concise, reads well for the general public and is neutral. There are no substantial claims, however, the article could use more references (i.e. use 3+) to validate their major points. The article does tend to focus on Caseous Lymphadenitis as opposed to C. pseudotuberculosis bacteria itself. However, in my opinion this is still a valid viewpoint as it is a major cause of disease in small ruminants, cattle and horses. The article does not persuade the reader to any particular viewpoints, products or pharmaceutical company affiliation.

I particularly enjoyed reading through the clinical signs section, this was very well written.

Consider rephrasing the first sentence under pathogenesis - phospholipase D, to a more neutral statement, for example, "In research isolates of C. pseudotuberculosis to date, the virulence factor, phospholipase D has been found in all samples."

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 used for the article are from reputable, peer-reviewed journals. The authors of the article have done a thorough literature review of their topic which is excellent! Great job! The majority of the sections rely on a few main references for the majority of the content. It would be useful to try to find additional sources that support the statements only validated by one source, it would provide more evidence for the conclusions and allow readers to do further research. Are there more sources on this topic that have been published in the last 10 years? It looks like a majority of the articles used are from 2000-2010. Both the journal sources and list of authors are diverse which makes the information presented more credible. The links I have tested all provide direction to the paper being cited.

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 content is easy to follow and written well for the general public. Consider moving "History, epidemiology and zoonotic risk," either to the very end before references, or following "cellular morphology, biochemistry and identification." I think that when talking about Caseous Lymphadenitis disease the flow would make more sense to move from clinical signs, diagnosis, pathogenesis, to treatment.

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 currently no images or media within the article. If you can find a photograph of your bacteria or of Caseous Lymphadenitis to include that would be very eye-catching!

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:
Yes, the article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The article is supported by well-over 2-3 reputable references. While the list of references is unlikely exhaustive, the authors did a great job finding a variety of sources to include in the article! The authors could add more links to other Wikipedia articles for the terms I've mentioned above. Another section to considering including would be economic significance.

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:
The article is very thorough and gives a good understanding of the importance of C. pseudotuberculosis in veterinary medicine! Strengths of the article include being well organized by topic, well-written for the general public and easy to follow. Adding a catchy lead section and including more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages would be my major suggestions for improvements to this page. Overall excellent job C. pseudotuberculosis team and thanks for having the majority of your article complete in good time to review! Great team work!

- Catherine Beaupre