User:Kaitlan.Linnell/Actinobacillus equuli/Jessica.jmj141 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? (Kaitlan.Linnell)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Actinobacillus equuli

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 the first sentence makes it clear it is about A. equuli
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not yet, some sections seem to be missing from the lead eg susceptibility
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not that I can see
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? most citations seem to be over 5 years old; however there are some very recent references.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not yet
 * 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. information is presented in an unbiased tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, again they did well at stating the information about the bacteria in a neutral tone.
 * 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. although some of the information presented is from primary sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? No, a lot of the references are over the 5 year mark.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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 it is very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes good sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I am unsure
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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 well exceeds that number
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? 43 references. 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. very well layed out and use of info boxes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes, they have used many links in their article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. there was nothing at all about this bacteria now they have a great page about it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The amount of information on the page is great. the use of textboxes for the biochemistry section is really helpful and makes gives a more visual representation of the tests.
 * How can the content added be improved? this page doesn't seem to be for the average person it does seem to require a higher scientific understanding. A lot of the material is pre 2008 which doesn't seem to be as up to date as it should be.