User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis/Ellie.eld885 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? Tory.yont Taylorella equigenitalis
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Taylorella equigenitalis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
There has been a good start made on the lead, a bit more information needs to be added once each section of the article is complete to better summarize the contents of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content so far is relevant and well written. To further improve the article each section could add some links to relevant articles for certain words that lay people may not know such as PCR, some of the identification tests, venereal transmission etc. At the end of the Morphology section it mentions that T. equigenitalis is sensitive to penicillin type antibiotics, I was wondering if this is used to identify the bacteria, otherwise this information may be more relevant in the treatment section of the article. I am also unsure if it makes sense to mention which reseachers discovered the capsule and pili of the bacteria or if you could just simply state it and reference it properly. Otherwise a very interesting article so far!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content so far is neutral and factual.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There is a long list of reputable sources with links that work, which is great!

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?

Organization evaluation
The article is clearly organized with different headings on relevant topics. It flows well with minimal grammatical and spelling errors. The first sentance in the morphology section has the word 'conditions' repeated twice so that just needs to be edited.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
NA

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article is well organized and contains references to many reliable sources. Some links to other articles could be added to improve the ease at which it will be understood.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The information so far is easy to understand and provides a thorough review of the topic. It is very helpful that there is a box breaking down the scientific classification of the organism, this may be something I would want to add to my article too. As mentioned before to improve the article some links could be added and some spelling errors fixed. It will be a very interesting article once it is complete!

~Ellie Duncan