User:Reesegroover/Campylobacter jejuni/Larissalemuscastro Peer Review


 * No, the lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added
 * The lead does not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic
 * The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article
 * The Lead is not overly detailed and concise


 * The content added is relevant to the topic
 * The content added is up-to-date
 * There is some content that is missing. The content that is there is placed in the appropriate subsections
 * Missing structure of the bacterium, optimal survival conditions, environment, background, history, etc.
 * This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.


 * The content added is neutral
 * I didn't find any claims that appear biased
 * I do think the viewpoints of a standard civilian without any previous knowledge of the topic is underrepresented
 * There are a lot of big words and concepts that are not given a basis/backgrounds
 * I do not think the content added attempts to persuade readers


 * The content is backed up by reliable sources
 * The content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say
 * The sources are thorough and do  reflect the available literature on the topic
 * some of the sources are current


 * some of the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and i do not believe they include historically marginalized individuals where possible
 * I think there are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites
 * The links checked do work


 * the content added is well-written
 * the content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors
 * the content added is not well-organized, it is broken down inot sections but they are kind of all over the place


 * the article doe not include images that enhance understanding of the topic
 * No images are well-captioned
 * No images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * No images are laid out in a visually appealing way

• the article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements


 * the list of sources is not that exhaustive
 * the article does not follow the patterns of other similar articles
 * the article does not link to other articles so it is more discoverable


 * the content added has improved the overall quality of the article as it has added a lot more content
 * The content strengths is that it includes a lot of information
 * A better organization system with sub headings of similar topics would be better for such a vast amount of information. Writing the paragraphs in a more comprehensible way would improve this article. Accurate and relevant information is great. A lot of this information connects to what we have learned in class so I think it's a great time to make those connections.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)