User:Gobrans17/Ctenocephalides felis/Kamur93 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gobrans17


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
The lead section was updated to include general information about the ecology and parasite-host relationship of the cat flea. The author also provides brief information about its distribution and common occurrence of infestation. However, this section can be further expanded to include an additional 2-3 sentences on the temporal distribution and geographical range of the cat flea. It is important to note that the author claims that the distribution of the cat flea is worldwide despite lacking to provide any proper citations to support this. Although this lead section is moderately concise, it lacks concrete words and organizational structure to help with readability and comprehension.

Content
The sections on disease transmission, treatment, and insecticide resistance are new topics introduced by the author. This content is relevant because it provides information on the human health risk of the cat flea, which are carriers of notable parasitic bacteria. However, it is important to note that the author does not provide any cited literature to support this claim. Furthermore, the section on treatment focuses on potential prevention and mitigation methods when dealing with flea borne diseases. I recommend citing information provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC website provides substantial information about prevention and treatment of flea-borne diseases, which can help expand this section. I also recommend changing the title of this section to "Prevention and Treatment of flea-borne disease". Finally, the section on insecticide resistance provides a concise summary. However, this section could improve in organization. For instance, providing brief information about the cycle of disease transmission between the parasite and carrier (i.e., cat flea) would improve readability. Overall, the content provides a brief summary of information regarding these biological and ecological topics, however, it is not supported by multiple sources.

Tone and Balance
The overall tone of the article draft is formal and neutral. The readability of the article is accessible and well-balanced with a professional tone. The use of adjectives as modifiers when describing scientific facts is not necessary here. Instead, it is recommended that the author removes any unnecessary adjectives and adverbs to make their writing more concise and objective. Furthermore, the section on human health impacts (i.e., treatment) should be further expanded to include its geographical distribution and temporal occurrence to fully represent the stakeholders involved.

Sources and References
Overall, this article references three articles in total, ranging from 1994-2016. The author should review how to cite in Wikipedia because the content lacked proper in-text citations. Providing in-text citations is useful for the readers and editors to check the credibility and relevance of the source cited. However, this minor detail can easily fixed. It is recommended that the author provides more references to support several claims made throughout the article. Although the author did a great job paraphrasing the content derived from references, it requires in-text citations for accessible navigation to the source's origin.

Organization
The content provided by this article was well-written and moderately concise. The use of transition words provides structure and organizational flow. On average, there were no notable grammatical and spelling errors. The title of the sections could be further improved to deliver conciseness. For example, the section named 'treatment' is vague and it is not an accurate representation of the content provided for this topic.

Images and media
The author did not include any updated images and media.

Expansion from current article
In comparison to the original article, this draft does a wonderful job at providing new creative topics that are relevant to the cat flea. Prior to the author's edits, the original article provided information on the life history of the cat flea. I think the topics revolving human health and pesticide resistance are important however, it should be further expanded and properly cited.

Overall impressions
To sum up, I think the author does a good job at writing concisely and the organizational flow of the sections is easy to follow. The main criticisms of this draft was the lack inclusivity of diverse citations. I think the sections added to the original article are relevant and useful for potential readers.