User:Melanie.Roulin/Dichelobacter nodosus/Ashley.milne 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) Melanie.Roulin, Coral.williams, Michelle Streeter,Kendra.tod
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Melanie.Roulin/Dichelobacter nodosus

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
Very well done, is concise, and does a good job of quickly summarizing the information in the article, without going into too much detail.

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
I feel like the one thing missing in this article, that could fit under ID/Taxonomy or possibly Cellular Morphology, is what the organism may look like when plated, the colony morphology, etc. Or whether or not that can be routinely done as it would be nice to know what the colonies of the organism look like for completeness. Is plating the organism possible or is it hard to grow in the lab? And for what reasons?

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
Content tone is neutral, all the information is relevant, but as l state below is a bit repetitive, and since the article is not done I will note just needs a bit of organization :).

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
I think the references are good, they range from primary, secondary, and some industry resources that I think are reliable sources of information.

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
I feel like the article was somewhat disjointed although I note it does not seem completed yet. The content is relevant, however some of the content under certain headings could be amalgamated or moved to another section. For example, the Cellular Morphology section has some information that I think would work better under Taxonomy. I would suggest either combining those sections or to transfer some of the information to a more relevant section. I noticed there was mention of the preferred climates of the bacteria in that section as well, which would probably fit better under epidemiology for example. I did also note that the order of the sections is a bit hard to follow. I feel like it would make sense to introduce the bacteria with ID/Taxonomy first and Epidemiology, followed with why it is an issue bug, with Virulence/Disease and Sequelae, or separate that into two sections for Virulence factors followed by Disease process and sequelae, Diagnosis may have some information that could fit under ID/Taxonomy, Disease, Virulence, and maybe Epidemiology. Interspecies Transmission could come next, then Prevention with Treatment as single header, and then Antibiotic resistance. I feel like that order with the content presented may help with the flow, but please note this is merely my suggestion.

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 are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The original article was missing quite a bit of information, and the content absolutely helps add some completeness. Overall, I noticed a bit of redundancy between each section, it may be good to read together and make sure the content is not repeated or to make sure it goes under the heading that is most relevant to the topic. I do think the content you have is good overall, mostly for me there were some organizational issues that made the article hard to follow, and my only suggestion for added content would be the colony morphology of the plated organism or any other laboratory ID techniques to give a more organism perspective focus rather than disease agent ID focus.