User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis/Ciara.zarn 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? Group writing Taylorella equigenitalis
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis

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 there is a good introductory sentence that highlights key facts about their bacterial species.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a contents section that lists the sections included in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No the information in the lead is a good indicator of what the article is about.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think this is a good concise lead introducing a reader to Taylorella equigenitalis.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content added to this article gives a good overview of the bacterial species. They have included subjects from basic morphology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and even a section on the clinical and economic value T. equigenitalis has.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Looking at the resources they pulled their information from, the content seems to have come from recent sources of information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The section 'Genomics, Molecular Biology and Biochemical Identification' seems to be missing some information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the tone throughout the article remains neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I did not read any claims that show to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I feel that this is a well-balanced article that describes T. equigenitalis in a neutral way.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the facts of this bacterial species has been described in a way that it won't bias the reader to thinking this is a good or bad bacteria based off of the author's tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes based on what I see in the references.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they have a good range of sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Depending on what you're definition of current is, I would say yes most of their sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes their resources includes many different authors.
 * 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?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think this is a very well written article with relevant topics that will provide a reader with a good overview of Taylorella equigenitalis.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The authors did a good job writing the information in a way that is easy to read and understand for anyone who doesn't have much of a microbiology background.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would recommend adding some images.