User:Jessica.jmj141/Histophilus somni/MadisonAudeau 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? (provide username) 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
 * 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? Yes, very thorough!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, but maybe a tad long. There's lots of info in there that is maybe a bit superfluous as it is all explained at length later in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Definitely
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nope
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes? This question isn't really relevant to a scientific article.

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, it succinctly warns of the pathogenicity of this microbe without being sensational.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article is very well referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Definitely
 * 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, no problems.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I really like the addition of the table in the biochemistry section. It's a great way to visualize that information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Found one misspelling of septicemic as "septucemic"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it's laid out well.

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 yet
 * 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? Definitely
 * 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, it looks really good but is lacking a photograph of the bacterium
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, lots of good links to other Wiki pages.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is very thorough
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It's written in a way that the general public would be able to understand while still presenting all the relevant information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Yes