User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis/Grace.Snyder 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): 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?
 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes (except for comments below on treatment options)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I identified.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content for morphology, biochemistry, and identification is easy to understand and the material is presented well. There is a formatting issue with references 3 and 4. In your reference section, those two have an error code in red: "Check date values." I believe that you have to select those references and manually enter the correct date for the reference because the formatting is not working for wikipedia. Otherwise, I thought the references were good sources and up-to-date enough for the content that is being presented in this section.

The clinical signs section is quite good, and I think the references are good and the information is easy to understand! My only suggestion is to say "internal form" instead of "internal manifestation" because you referred to it as an "internal form" when you defined it.

The diagnosis section is concise and easy to follow. This is very nit-picky, but I don't really like the use of the word "vague" -maybe you could say due to the "difficulty to detect the internal form"? something like that. I just think vague might not be a very good way to describe clinical signs.

Pathogenesis/Virulence: I really liked this section! I don't have anything to add.

History, epidemiology, and zoonotic risk: I might break that second sentence into 2 sentences. It runs on a tad. Also, would this section be a good place to add some information on Cornynebacterium pseudotuberculosis and its economic implications on small ruminant farms? i.e. does Caseous lymphadenitis cause a big problem for producers historically? currently? I really like this interesting history though! really cool.

Treatment: I really like how this section is written. My one thought is that the references are rather old (2001,2006,2007, and 2009). I wonder if there are any more recent articles to describe treatment? Merck has a 2014 treatment description that could add to this section as well!

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/circulatory-system/lymphadenitis-and-lymphangitis/caseous-lymphadenitis-of-sheep-and-goats (2014)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
I thought that the tone and balance of this article seemed great. The content all seems neutral, I did not identify an bias, and I thought that the viewpoints were represented well. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader. Great job, guys!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * 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
I thought the references were from all good sources. All of the links appear to work. On references 3,4, and 19 - you need to fix the red error message (manually fix the dates). If possible, I think that the treatment section would benefit from a more recent source being added.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes.

Organization evaluation
I thought that your article is organized very well, and I really enjoyed reading it. My only thought is that the history portion might look better at the beginning of the article, just because it seems sort of random to be put in between pathogenesis and treatment. I think that is just my personal preference though. I don't think it's a problem with your article!

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
No images added at this time.

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? probably not
 * 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

New Article Evaluation
Yes. There were many reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I don't think that their list was exhaustive, but I think that they represented the best representation of research and publications on their particular organism. The article does have several links to other wikipedia articles. The pattern and organization of the article is good.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? very easy to understand and well written.
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I really liked this article. I think that the content can be improved with a few tweaks (mentioned in my comments above), but I think you guys are close to being done! I think you could link your article to a few more other wikipedia articles, and I would see about getting a couple more recent articles concerning treatment. I also think that reorganizing where the history section fits into the article could be beneficial.

Overall, great job! I really enjoyed reading this.