User:Pret1790/Moraxella catarrhalis/Ben6010 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Name: Benjamin Pezzack

Student #: 180696010

Date: 12/3/2022

Course Code: BI-496C

Professor: Dr. Allison McDonald

 BI-496C Peer Review of 1st Edits to Articles Assignment 

The lead of the Wikipedia article which is associated with the pathogen Moraxella catarrhalis was not changed at all by the author in their edit of the page, which means that it was not updated to reflect the inclusion of the information specified within the edit. The lead that already exists as part of the relevant article is mostly satisfactory, however, in that it includes a brief description of the article’s major sections, through its outlining of the rough biological characteristics and infectious possibilities of the pathogen, however there is no mention within the existing lead of the information the author’s edit is concerned with - that of vaccine development. The existing lead previously provided by a contributor of the article is, therefore, very concise and detailed as well, and does not overemphasize any topic that will be covered later, which is likely the reason why the author of the edit chose to leave it unaltered.

It pleases me greatly to be able to say, with positive assurance, that the information presented by the author within their edit of the Moraxella catarrhalis Wikipedia page is completely relevant to the topic, with several sections within the edit relating to and expanding on concepts covered within the article, such as the development of a vaccine using the targeted surface protein of UspA. Several other sections, including the very nature of the pathogen Moraxella catarrhalis, the myriad of negative health effects on humans of various ages as a result of it’s infection (including otitis media and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), as well as the rationale behind why development of a vaccine must endure are all also related to the topic organism of Moraxella catarrhalis. There is, however, a few instances of content within the edit that does not belong, such as within paragraphs 1 and 2 of the edit which contain sentences repeating the same information (e.g. the second and third sentences of paragraph 2, which both state that Moraxella catarrhalis is associated with COPD).

The content within the author’s first edit for the Wikipedia page concerning Moraxella catarrhalis was, I can safely say, completely neutral in the way it was delivered, making it seem to me that the author was presenting, as intended by the requirements of this assignment, a nonpartisan view of the material which lacked biases that supported a certain relevant viewpoint. Indeed, I thought that the information presented within the edit concerning such topics as how the consequences of it’s infection of a human differs depending of the age of the human (e.g. children versus adults), and possible molecular candidates for a vaccine (such as UspA2) were all shown from the point of view of an instructor or educator, and provided merely information, rather than an opinion as well. I suppose that if there is any viewpoint that the author is attempting to persuade me towards with this edit, it is that a vaccine for M. catarrhalis is necessary in the future, which in my opinion is certainly justified considering the horrendous health effects that infection with the pathogen incurs upon humans.

I can say for certain that all of the content provided by the author in their first edit of the Wikipedia page for Moraxella catarrhalis that was not already presented within the article was backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. I thought that the author truly did an exceptional job of making sure that all of the external points of information which they utilized in their edit were supported by a source, with the author including as many as 8 separate references to outside literature, which are all cited in the edit at the end of any piece of information used from these pieces. Additionally, I am glad to report that the references incorporated by the author within their edit of the article all reflect the available literature concerning the topic, with the bibliography including sources relating to such topics as the effects of Moraxella catarrhalis infection, as well as the progress towards it’s associated vaccine.