User:Xiao.ma.xim589/Neorickettsia risticii/Jessica.jeb355 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? Xiao.ma.ma.xim589
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Neorickettsia risticii

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead seems to cover an introduction to most topics in the article, but could include a brief introduction to the pathogenesis section.
 * 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? The only thing missing at this point is a brief introduction to the pathogenesis
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? need to complete
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise - it seemed only a few details were repeated in later sections but were pertinent to include in the lead section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Since their articles are from 2001-2016 I would agree that they are fairly recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? lots of missing topics, but on the plus side lots of room for improvement :)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? the only thing I was wondering is the claim "the main clinical presentation" in the treatment and prevention section. I did not research this topic aside from what is written so I dont know what is available in the literature, but this is definitely a statement pointing to a particular position... that being said, if that is truly the main clinical presentation for this organism backed up by literature, then this may be ok.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The pathogenesis section had less content than the other sections, although I was unsure if that was because there was not as much literature on this topic and they had covered all that they had found available.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, the content is written with factual details pertinent to the organism.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part, yes. I did notice a few sentences at the end of paragraphs or topics that had no citation after it however. Ex "Therefore, diarrhea is one of the common clinical signs of equine neorickettsiosis" at the end of the pathogenesis section, as well as two closing sentences in each of the paragraphs in the clinical significance section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe they thoroughly covered what was available for the topics they have in the article.
 * Are the sources current? many of the sources are 15 or more years old. I would consider adding more recent literature if it is available, from within the last 5 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * 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? 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, this is one of the articles strong suits. It is well written and organized, and easy to read, and the topics covered are relevant to the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? unknown, was not sure how to verify this
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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? yes, many references are cited with a broad variety of topics that enabled them to discuss each of their articles topics sufficiently.
 * 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? definitely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? they have now covered many more topics in their article giving a more in depth coverage of the topic
 * How can the content added be improved? I think a bit more could be added to the pathogenesis section IF there is more information available. and I believe references should be added to those sentences where there is not.