User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni/Amanda.amc513 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? Jessica.jmj141, Jessica.jeb355, Jessica.debruyne, Venessa.ibsen, Saf782
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni (Sandbox Draft)

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? kind of
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead is very similar to the first section titled Description (not sure if this is a temporary section), but it introduces the bacterium well and is concise. Maybe a few more sentences to introduce what is covered in the other sections would be nice. For instance, histophilosis is a main focus of the Disease section, so this could be introduced in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, the references cited are all mainly from the past 20 years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? the article is still in progress, so some things are still being added
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation
The article is pretty comprehensive and covers a lot about the bacterium. Some sections seem to have a little overlap in content, such as the Description section and the Cellular Morphology section.

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
Good

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? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good selection of review articles

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? a few - but this is just the first draft
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? for the most part

Organization evaluation
The sections are a good length and easy to follow. It might flow better if the Cellular Morphology and Biochemistry section was placed earlier in the 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? yes
 * 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? not sure

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? it is nice and concise, the topic is extensively covered
 * How can the content added be improved? Images would make the article more visually appealing

Overall evaluation
Great start to the article!