User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni/Jessie.jkh912 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/Histophilus somni
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Histophilus somni - Wikipedia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they have done a thorough overview of the article in the introduction.
 * 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? A general statement is included about the key take-aways from each section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is an appropriate length for the length of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, many of the sources are from the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content flows well and addresses the major topics provided by each heading.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? n/a

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, appropriate citations are utilized by the contributors of each section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, as above, the information referenced is from fairly current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Because of the nature of this topic, the authors will all have some degree of microbiology/bacteriology education. The sources are from a multitude of journals and authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I clicked on work. I notice a few have errors, marked in red. I had issues with this as well, for instance if the date only included month and year it would be flagged. I was still able to link to the external source, so this shouldn't be an issue.

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? Only a few very minor typos.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, well laid out.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no images included.
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? The list of citations included is extensive and current in its coverage of the topic.
 * 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, contains taxonomic infobox and appropriate section headings.
 * 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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More in depth content with more sources included. More all-encompassing general overview summary included for quick reference on the bacterial species, and thorough coverage of the most clinically relevant topics.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding images of the diagnostic identification methods and morphology would be beneficial supplementation to this article.