User:Ellie.eld885/Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis/Mej010 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) Ellie.eld885
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say it is slightly overdetailed but I can understand it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? there are quite a few recent citations (within the last 5 years) but some of the citations are older
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? not that I'm aware of
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would say yes because sheep diseases are usually underrepresented, although if talking about human only underrepresentation- no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no they use neutral tones and seem to present both sides if there is two thoughts to an idea
 * 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

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? I would say about 1/3 of the sources were written in the last 5 years so no most of them are not written in the last 5 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, they have textbooks and many different journals that they took articles from
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes they do

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? most of it is, some of the sentences are choppy and need to blend into the sentences around it more.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? in Mycolic acid, the 2nd sentence is a partial sentence and should be added to the sentence prior.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes, I might include what species it was isolated from though
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes, as far as I'm aware (it says CC-4)
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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, there are many more than 2-3
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? as far as i know
 * 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 although I think they could put more links into the article as there isn't that many

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? Considering there was nothing about this before on wiki, I think the strength is that there is more information on this now
 * How can the content added be improved? I think its great! other than maybe adding a few hyperlinks