User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis/Lucas.grist 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.Waldner, 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 yet (I hope)
 * 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? Somewhat it is heavily focused on the disease the bacteria causes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Lead introduces the article nicely by stating what the bacteria is and what it is most commonly known for. However it heavily focuses on CEM instead of describing the whole article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * 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?

Content evaluation
Content is well informed, covers everything wanted about the bacteria and presented in an easily digestible fashion.

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
Tone is unbiased and the facts are presented on the bacteria without any noticeable personal agendas.

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? Yes
 * 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
Sources are all from reputable science journals that reflect the topic and are as current as can be.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Each topic broken down into sections so that it is easily navigated and easily read and understood.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
No images, makes me sad when I read it.

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

New Article Evaluation
Reliable sources, long list of them, the set up is similar to many articles of bacteria aside from the lack of pictures. Hyperlinked well to then get to other wikipedia pages regarding bacteria and related topics.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? very informative
 * How can the content added be improved? add in pictures and more tables to make it look less research paper like and more captivating this is wikipedia after all dammit!

Overall evaluation
Very well organized, researched and written wikipedia page. Everything is complete while also concise and phrased in ways to be easily understandable but without leaving anything out. 10/10