User:Mr.mowgs/Mycobacterium lepromatosis/Mjbmicro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mr.mowgs


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.mowgs/Mycobacterium_lepromatosis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mycobacterium lepromatosis

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?
 * The original article does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Since nothing was added, there are no sections to the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * If the outline provided were to be written/elaborated upon, then yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I see no sources to be able to tell
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, currently there is only an outline and nothing added to the article body or lead

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Assuming what is to be written follows the outline, it will be scientific and unbiased
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * 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?
 * No new content was added
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * N/A
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Looking at the bibliography, it looks like there are not many sources but they seem thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Looking at the bibliography, it looks like there are current sources planned to be used
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Three of the sources are from the same author. I would try to vary this if possible.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * From a quick google scholar search, it appears there are many more peer-reviewed articles available to add and reference.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The bibliography leads to links that work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Once the outline content is added, it seems like it will be aa fairly comprehensive article
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No content was yet added
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Based on the outline, yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * No new content was added. When the outline is turned into the article, it will add greatly to the quality of such article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Adding more specifics about the bacterium and ways it is different from other similar bacteria, will be a strong addition.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * If possible, I would add the steps as to how this bacterium causes disease. I would also find more references as the original article only has 3 and it looks like there are more that could be used. If it is known, it would be beneficial to had how to combat this disease or how to manage it.