User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli/Shelby.slk600 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  ACrookes, Amanda.amc513, Dixon.alexa, Morgan.kelley123, Ttjjarrett
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't see a lead update in their sandbox but their article already has a lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but it could be expanded on. The first sentence is quite short.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it touches very briefly on the main points in their draft.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Dates of references range from 1960's to 2018. There may be some info on this organism that has been known for a long time and they have supplemented the article with new info too.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The disease section has yet to be written.
 * 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.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think so.
 * 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? There are plenty of references and some are primary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sure
 * Are the sources current? Many articles are older (1960-90) but some articles are newer. A good mix
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yep

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written. Maybe some larger paragraphs could be broken into smaller sections as they are overwhelming to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Under the History section, the name of the organisms needs to be italicized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it makes sense.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes sir
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very thorough coverage of the topics.
 * How can the content added be improved? There seems to be some overlap between sections. If one section mentions/explains somethings then it can be excluded from the next section to make the article more concise.