User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis/Eveline.juce Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Emmalyn Elgersma (Eelgersma) - Clinical Signs and Diagnosis section
 * 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?
 * 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
I do not believe that the lead section of this article has been wrote yet. The first section seen on this article is Cellular Morphology, Biochemistry and Identification which does not give an introduction to what the article is going to talk about so I assume that the group just hasn't had a chance yet to complete the Lead section (as of Oct. 14th).

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
For Emmalyn's section specifically: The references she used are recent so the information is up to date. It may be useful to put an external link for "ulcerative lymphangitis", "pyogranulomatous" and "caseous lymphadenitis" as everyday readers may not know much about these lesions/what these words mean.

The layout and flow of the Disease in ruminants section is well done.

It may be helpful to add in the section of Disease in cattle where on the skin/parts of the body these ulcerative lesions occur most often (if that information is known).

For the Disease in horses section, I am a little confused on the wording of the last sentence: ".... swollen, and contains draining ulcerative and nodular lesions." I don't understand the wording used here.

For Diagnosis section, is the weight loss and ill thrift seen in all animal species? It may be helpful to clarify again that the internal and external manifestation of the disease is found in sheep and goats only. It may also be helpful to put an external link for ELISA or just explain the technique as it is not common for the everyday person to understand or know what that is.

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
I think the tone Emmalyn used throughout her writing is very neutral and balanced. I do not see any bias or her take a stand toward a particular position trying to convince the reader. There is a lot more information given on Disease in small ruminants compared to Disease in cattle and Disease in horses section. However, I assume this lack of information is due to there being less of it out there. However, if possible, it may be useful to add more information to the Disease in cattle section or just state that less is known in cattle and the primary animals affected are goats and sheep. (If that is true?)

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 Emmalyn used are up to date. She does meet the 5 references required. However, I think it would be helpful if she referenced more of the sentences she wrote in the Disease in horses section.

For two references: "Caseous lymphadenitis" by MC Fontaine and GJ Baird AND "Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis and its Role in Ovine Caseous Lymphadenitis" by GJ Baird and MC Fontaine, I was unable to access the full article and only see the abstract (though, that could be my end however and not being signed in to the University library to see all the content). Additionally, these two articles are wrote by the same two people which may add a more narrow view on the topic but Emmalynn did use a neutral and non-biased tone herself when writing her sections.

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
This article is well organized and the sections are clearly labelled. The Lead paragraph is currently missing still (I think?) and once added that will help to clarify even more what the purpose of this article is. There are a few mid sentence capitalization errors here and there but nothing or major concern.

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 no images in this article as of Oct. 14th but it may be helpful to the viewer to add photos of the lesions that the animals do get if they have this bacterium. A picture is a 1000 words so it may help to clarify what lesions are seen and where they are seen.

For New Articles Only - N/A this bacteria already has a Wiki page on it
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?

Overall evaluation
Emmalyn's content will greatly improve the current Wiki article already available for this bacteria. It gives the reader a lot more information than what is already on the Wiki page. Once more information is known about the bacteria, it may be useful to add more to Disease in cattle and Disease in horses section. In the future, because this is a disease of livestock, it may be useful to know the economic impact of this disease. (ie: can the animals still be sent to market? can you still ride horses that are infected? etc.)

I did find there was some overlap in Emmalyn's section with the section on "History, Epidemiology and Zoonotic risk" specifically when talking about what types of lesions are seen in horses and small ruminants.