User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni/Lauren.lmb242 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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead is updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence is concise but the "rod or coccobacillus shaped" doesn't flow as nice in the beginning sentence.
 * 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? These two sentences are a little detailed for the lead. "Prior to 2003, it was thought Haemophilus somnus, Histophilus ovis, and Histophilus agni were three different species, but now are all classified as Histophilus somni. Histophilus somni is a known causative agent that is a part of the Bovine Respiratoy Disease complex, which typically involves multiple pathogens residing together in biofilm environments." I would end the second sentence after the Bovine Respiratory Disease complex and then explain what that is in the article. Otherwise the lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All of the content is relevant to this bacteria
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the citations are within the last 20 years so it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It seems like the content is complete.
 * 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? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This phrase, "however licensed does not mean effective" could be worded in a way that doesn't come off as biased.
 * 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? The lead needs sources!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current? Most are within the last 20 years so are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some of the wording is a little medical. Such as myocardium, thrombus, thromboembolic, septicemic, infarction, tenosynovitis. I think links to wiki articles that cover these terms would be helpful for someone reading who has no clue what myocardium means.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is the occasional spelling and grammar error which should be caught by a read through before moving to the main article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The material is broken down into sections but some could be broken up further as I mentioned in overall impressions.

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?

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 they have right now is much more complete than the article was. They have greatly improved the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the material covered is of high quality. They have a lot on microbiological characteristics of this bacteria which is nice.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding citations to the lead. I think combining description and microbiological morphology and biochemistry would be helpful since there is a lot of overlap between those sections. You could have description as a subsection under microbiological morphology. I think breaking up Diagnosis and Treatment into their own sections will make the article flow better. For Diagnosis and Treatment I think adding links to relevant wiki articles would be helpful. You could also break treatment into subsections such as Antibiotic treatment and vaccination. Although vaccination could be in a prevention section along with management of the cattle herd and cleanliness. I also think that epidemiology could be covered in the disease section under its own subsection to make the article flow better. Subsections could also be utilized in the pathogenesis and virulence section. Some pictures could be added of a slide of bacteria or it growing on chocolate agar or a picture of chocolate agar. A picture of an infected animal may also be appropriate if there are any free access ones.

==== Overall evaluation- Overall the article is coming along really well. It can be improved but was a really great read and I feel like I learned a lot about this bacteria by reading the article. Good job! ====