User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni/Kaitlan.Linnell 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A at this time
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence states exactly that H. somni is a bacteria and also which type of bacteria it is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The only section that appears to not be added to the lead is the section Culture and Biochemistry.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information contained in the lead is further discussed in the respective sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise and does not include "filler" or additional points not discussed in the sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content reflects all sections present.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content is present and belongs.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Content is neutral and cites information from a variety of studies.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims are apparent, article sticks to presenting educational facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I found this article to be geared towards cattle and only touches on small ruminates, which can also harbor the bacteria. I wouldn't say that bovine are overrepresented but I will say that small ruminates are underrepresented and deserve more of an acknowledgment.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There is no persuasion attempts made by the authors. The have multiple citations to back the facts and information provided. They also acknowledge that although the bacteria is normally found on the mucosal membranes not causing disease, it can cause disease if those barriers are breached.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Content is backed by reliable sources such as Merck, and multiple veterinary journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources are thorough and reflect literature both from the veterinary world as well as information from the research point of view, offering different outlooks on the bacteria.
 * Are the sources current? Some sources need their dates updated. The oldest citation appears to be from 2004, and most of the citations are from the last 10 years. The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Can I pass on this question?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that I clicked on worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I found the disease section to be packed with fillers and not as concise as it could have been but still well written, but the section could be shorter. Overall, all sections could have been more concise to me but I think they need the additional information to be able to describe the bacteria to the general public. Sections are explained nicely, allowing for an easy read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Grammar does need to be checked over by the whole group and that would make the article flow more easily as well. Spelling also needs to be check i.e. "try" corrected to "dry" in the identification subsection and "septucemic" to "septicemic" in the Disease section. Thorough proof readings should be completed by the group prior to completion.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I though the content was well organized and flowed nicely between subjects.

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


 * 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?

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?