User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis/Courtney.cem244 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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There is no lead section to evaluate as per now but I think if you guys are able to convey the major topics with minimal detail that should be a good introduction to you article.
 * 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?
 * DO NOT include anything that does not get mentioned later on (and avoid any details about sub-sections)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
There is no lead section here to unfortunately I am not able to evaluate that part.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * You guys have chosen to cover a lot of topics within each heading (for example Cellular Morphology, Biochemistry and Identification) and I am not sure that is the best thing to do but I understand that you are probably making sure everyone has a large enough section. I wonder if you would be able to break this down into sub-sections or smaller headings within a section so that the reader can find what they want to know about identification or so on without reading that large section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Looks like most of your references are fairly recent (2000 onwards) which I think is great for current knowledge but having older references is also okay if they are secondary. I don't know what this means by "up to date"
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there is no material that is missing that I can tell and nothing 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?
 * Yes? I assume since there was not an article prior to this that your research will be filling some gaps in the Wikipedia world

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All the content is neutral - good job with that there were no opinionated statements that I was able to find
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * Again, not that I could find it looks like you guys are trying to present all the options in an unbiased way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There aren't really view points in this at all just facts - nothing says that farmers believe... etc.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I did not look in depth at all your sources (as you have quite a few) - good job for that. But I would bet that many of them are primary sources and so if they are stating something its not necessarily accurate. IDK how to get around this because the reason there is no wiki page is because proven secondary source material is limited in these things (we had the same issue in our group) - Maybe just make sure at least a good chunk of them are secondary so your article is best supported.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * You guys have clearly done a lot of research on this so good job with that.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, as mentioned above most sources are current (2000+) so that is great!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The one area I think you could add something in would be to provide some numbers (maybe in United States Department of Ag or something like that) would be nice to have some numbers in the epidemiology of how common it is in Canada or the USA or something like that. I am sure they do surveys about these things?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Good news! Your links worked for me!

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 material presented for the most part is easy to read. In a lot of areas I found that you guys did "dumb down" the research which was great. I think that in the cell morphology etc. section you need to dumb it down a little more - its a bit overwhelming to read.

I did not find obvious spelling errors but its quite easy to have missed. Grammer was appropriate. I do however feel that the order of the sections could be changed. Right now you start with the giant morphology section ( I think that needs to be broken down into sub headings) and I think it should be followed with pathogenesis which would naturally lead into clinical signs. History/epidemiology could also move up in the order leaving the clinical signs, treatment etc stuff till the end where it should all be together.

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
As of now there are no images or media added to the article - I will warn you I have spent like 2004849 hours trying to add images to my article and its very hard. Rubin did say you do not require images because of the difficulty with this process but if you can figure it out hit me up and let me know PLEASE.

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
The article is well supported but again I am not sure how many secondary references you guys have so go through that and make sure you at least have a few! The reference source is exhaustive, you clearly did a lot of work on the research so great job there! The links in the article are only there for a few of the headings so I suggest making more links so people can find information about things like what a "cell mediated response" means in other wiki articles.

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 know you guys are not yet done editing and adding an intro but as of now your article is very good so you guys should be proud of the work you have put in. I would suggest again that the order to the headings needs to be changed and that you give some though to breaking down those massive headings into manageable bite sized pieces. I think there are some areas where the level of reading required is a bit beyond the scope of Wikipedia but other areas are great and creating an easy to read version so go through and consider making some changes to readability. I have copied your content onto a word doc so I was able to write some notes in the margins, if any of you would like me to send that over to you I am happy to do so. I know we are all majorly suffering through school right now and totally wiped of all our energy but it looks great you guys! Good work.