User:Xiao.ma.xim589/Neorickettsia risticii/Kiran.kef073 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, Meara, Kendra, Angela and Fiona
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Xiao.ma.xim589/Neorickettsia risticii

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
The lead section briefly introduces most of the sections that are discussed within the rest of the page. It is concise, but does not introduce any concepts related to diagnostics, treatment or prevention. As the rest of the article does not have any discussion of the history of Neorickettsia, the lead section is used to briefly discuss the pathogen's history.

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
This article is representative of the most recent knowledge on Neorickettsia, as there are many recent articles referenced, and this article addresses the taxonomic name change of the organism. The clinical significance of this bacteria is covered very well.

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 tone of the article seems neutral and unbiased. There are several points in the life cycle section that use the term "it is proposed" which suggests that either the author does not agree with the findings, or the findings are contradictory. These points could be re-worded to clarify why this life cycle is not yet fully supported. The treatments and vaccine sections show various methods of treatment and prevention, with the current evidence to support their efficacy, but do not push the reader to follow one specific method, which is good.

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
The links work although some are restricted access (university resources) which may limit what the public can follow up on. The sources are mostly recent, and from a wide variety of authors. Many of them are secondary 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
This article is laid out in a way that makes sense, and broken up well by headings. None of the sections are too long or need to be broken up further.

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
There is a helpful diagram for the transmission of Neorickettsia within it's parasite host. It would be useful to have an image included of this bacteria on a stained slide or cultured. The image is well captioned and it appears to be an original work (good job!).

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 lead section focuses a bit too much on history of the pathogen - perhaps this could be included as its own short section instead, allowing the lead to introduce all of the sections on the page. The diagram is helpful, although it would be nice to have a few more images, but these can be hard to find. The content is thorough and covers all topics well. There are useful links included to other pages.