User:Madlynlung/Actinomyces bovis/Michelle Streeter 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) Madlyn    Lung
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Madlynlung/Actinomyces_bovis

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content    added by your peer?
 * NO
 * 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?
 * Sort of
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present    in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does    not belong?
 * Not sure
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity    gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented     populations or topics?
 * It elaborates on a topic not fully elaborated on     before.

Content evaluation

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?
 * N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader    in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary    source of information?
 * Yes – they appear reliable
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the    available literature on the topic?
 * They seem to.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes most are
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of    authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where     possible?
 * N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise,    clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling    errors?
 * Not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down    into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation

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?
 * Appears to?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation

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?
 * Not sure, but represents multiple reliable sources
 * 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?
 * Appears to yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more    discoverable?
 * Yes

New Article Evaluation

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?
 * It adds more information about the bacteria. It is     easy to read, and seems to flow well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would want to know the timing of treatment and how this timing effects the efficacy of the treatment. From personal experience with Lumpy Jaw, if it is not caught and treated early, the bacteria is able to penetrate deep into the bone and is not able to accessed by antibiotics and eventually gets so bad to the point the cow is no longer able to eat and either dies or is culled due to anorexia. Maybe there is some secondary research on the timing of treatment and how that effected the ability of that animal to recover from the infection? Or how to detect early signs of lump jaw effectively to prevent irreversible damage? Building on this - you say that treatment is often ineffective - maybe you should build on this as to why?

Overall evaluation

Well written, easy to follow article. Well done team.