User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni/Kendra.tod 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 (and rest of group, cannot see their usernames from here)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Histophilus somni ; sandbox: User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni

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? sort of, although it focuses on the bacteria as a bacteria versus a causative agent of disease
 * 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? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, it looks like most references are from within the last ten years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would maybe add that another constraint of vaccine use is the cost to the producer, as that would be a major reason for not using a vaccine (ie. if it were free and 99% ineffective, it may still be worth saving those couple of cows?? but not if it costs $X per head), as well as prevalence/epidemiology and contagiousness within a herd/once the bacteria is found in a herd - does the herd need to be depopulated, is it active in the environment for a while?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, there was barely any information previously

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? underrepresented - prevalence/epidemiology: only touch on "global prevalence". Also, no info if there is any human concern. More direct info on prevention.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I mean, I guess it persuades readers to prevent disease as it is unlikely to treat this particular one, at least I hope it does.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, except for the last sentences in the intro - although, I think these are deduced based on the info collected?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? it looks like they have plentiful recent resources, so I imagine it's a good reflection of what is out there for meta-analysis sources
 * Are the sources current? yes, within the last ten years
 * 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

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? some - ie. the last sentence "...such as the neurological presentation does allow for timely treatment because by the time the disease is detected, it is too late for treatment"; other minor typos
 * 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? N/A
 * 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. -''' not new but... basically new?


 * 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? yes

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? comprehensive look at H. somni, filled a gap in wikipedia, linked to important things (ie. BRD) so that people who are looking at the disease can learn more about the causative agent.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would maybe separate a prevention portion so that it is easier to find considering treatment is unlikely, additionally a prevalence/epidemiology section would be interesting (ie. how common is this globally? where is it found more often?); otherwise, publish it so the world can see your wonderful work!

Overall evaluation
Good job guys, I learned a lot of things I didn't know, and read a lot of words I barely know. :)