User:Kaitlyn.kfw288/Campylobacter upsaliensis/Billy.bmm020 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) Kaitlyn.kfw288
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Campylobacter upsaliensis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and clearly summarizes the article and its major contents. It's well organized and presented in the same order as the information is presented in the article (morphology & biochemistry, epidemiology, disease, virulence, diagnosis, and treatment). It does not include anything that isn't in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Yes, the content is relevant, sources are up to date, and there isn't any missing content. The virulence section was quite detailed, I think some of those details could be removed to make that section a bit more concise.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, the content is neutral and there are no biases. Each section addresses a different aspect of C. upsaliensis with appropriate detail and information to support what's being presented. A good example for how this article remains neutral is in the diagnosis section: "Despite the vast array of methods available, no gold standard method of diagnostic test has been agreed upon, and each method has its benefits and drawbacks that should be considered within the scope of each case".

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes, everything is cited appropriately. Good sources were chosen and reflect what is relevant to the sections. They are current and the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Yes, the content is well written and easy to read. There are a couple typing errors with the links to other articles but otherwise it's well written and organized. The lead mentions the article's sections which follow in the same order and flow nicely. I like how the article starts with background information (morphology & biochemistry) then expands into how C. upsaliensis spreads, how it affects dogs and humans, virulence, then into diagnosis and treatment as it's easy to follow this way.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Right now there is one image and I think it was well chosen for its section as it shows how Campylobacter looks, and also gives a good description so having this picture in the morphology & biochemistry section makes sense! I think a few additional pictures would enhance the article a bit, maybe a picture of one of the diagnostic test examples as that's a pretty big section.

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?

Overall evaluation
This article was very nicely done! I think that it's organized well, easy to follow, and presented in a way that is understandable. The lead presents the article's sections: morphology and biochemistry, epidemiology, disease, virulence, diagnosis, and treatment. Each section had an appropriate level of detail, presented neutral content, and had good sources. My suggestions for improvement would be to add a few more photos and fix the hyperlink typos (possibly remove a few hyperlinks). Otherwise awesome job!!