User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis/Erika.macdonald Peer Review

Peer review
The lead into the article is concise. I'm not entirely sure that the lead in has been updated to reflect all the new information added to the article. The introductory sentence describes the article's topic well. Adding a review of the major sections of the article could make the lead in more comprehensive. The second part of the lead in describes transmission of the bacteria and I'm not sure it belongs in the introduction. The content included is comprehensive and includes all important and relevant topics. The added content is up to date and well sourced. All content is appropriate and there isn't any gaps in the information provided. The content and tone is neutral. There are no biased claims and all viewpoints are equally represented. The article is not written to be persuasive to any one perspective. The content is well referenced and the sources are numerous. The bibliography is thorough and the sources included are current. The links appear to work properly. The content is well written - there are no spelling or grammatical errors. The organization of the article is clear and easy to navigate. The article is far more complete with the added content. All of the sections are detailed and concise. I think if the lead in reviewed the sections of the article it would really bring the whole thing together. Overall I think the article is easy to read, highly informative, and contributes greatly to the Wikipedia community.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Tory.yont, Catherine.beaupre, Rebecca.Walder, Hannah.hgs990, Charlie.swain17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis