User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli/Stevenovakowski 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) Morgan.kelley123, ACrooke, Ttjjarrett, Dixon.alexa, Amanda.amc513
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Brachyspira pilosicoli

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very well written, and concise.

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? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does, within the history section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really. It seems as though all information relayed is quite neutral, and that care was taken to relay events and information in a logical way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. When using statements discussing uncommon incidences or likely routes for infection, for example, or other statements that could be mistaken for viewpoints, they are are cited.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? No. I feel like the history section may be trying to incite interest in the topic, but that's about it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There were a handful of primary resources, many reviews and texts.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there was a vey thorough coverage of the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the research was published within the last 20 years, a few articles were older than that and a couple were more than a few decades old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I'm not certain.
 * 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 was a very well written article, and information was delivered logically and neutrally.
 * 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. I think the introduction bridges nicely into the history of the organism, and the more recent information of scientific relevance is placed towards the end of the article, which follows a linear and logical trajectory.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. The utility of the image with the chicken and pigs is perhaps questionable, and the pigs are kind of difficult to see.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * 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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It is quite thorough.
 * 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, and the headings used helped illustrate the pathogenesis of the organism.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Most certainly.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Well delivered content, neurally presented information, a thorough coverage of material.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe a few more pictures, and trying as best as possible to keeping sources current. Perhaps allowing the most relevant and current research, or research reviews, dictate the information that is included

Overall evaluation
I thought the authors did a great job pulling together a large set of resources in a very concise and interesting way. I found that the sections flowed very well from one to the other, and everything was well written, with great care given towards small details and the overall composition of the page. Awesome job guys!