User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis/Jack.Jeg724 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, Catherine.beaupre, Rebecca.Walder, Hannah.hgs990, Charlie.swain17
 * 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? Not as yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Maybe slightly too concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been updated with the information added at this time.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Seems to be
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
Content is good, generally. There are some conflicts for example: Ecology Dist and hab notes cases in both horses and rats whereas the host range section of Pathogenesis says cases are only in horses.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No,
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Even tone and balance throughout.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Seem to
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * 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? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good review of a variety of current sources.

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
There are some grammatical and spelling errors, expected in a draft. The content is clear to a vet student, although some sections may be a little technical language heavy for the everyday reader. Very well organised.

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
No images included

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
Overall quality and breadth of information is vastly improved! Well done team!