User:Kaitlyn.kfw288/Campylobacter upsaliensis/Dana.dll023 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? (provide username) Carling.cas365, Jaskaran.purba, Kaitlyn.kfw288, MadisonAudeau, Tegan.tcr517
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kaitlyn.kfw288/Campylobacter upsaliensis

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

It does not look like a lead has been written yet.

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

All of the added content is relevant and up-to-date as over half the sources are more recent than 2007. There does not appear to be any missing content. It looks like this was a brand new page, so I think it is filling gaps in Wikipedia.

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 is neutral, and all claims appear to be backed by appropriate sources. I think the page is well-balanced so all aspects are appropriately represented. They do not try to persuade the reader of any particular positions.

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

They have a good variety of reliable sources. Their sources are varied and cover all of the topics discussed in the article, and the majority of the sources are current. All of the links that are checked worked properly.

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

The content is very well written, but I think some of the language may be advanced for the general public. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I thought the content was very well-organized; I especially liked their breakdown of diagnostic methods.

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

The image that they added does enhance the understanding and is appropriately captioned. I think they could potentially add an image of the organism on culture media as well to further enhance the article. I believe the image adheres to copyright regulations, and the current image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

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?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• 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?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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

I think the article is very complete, well-written and adds to Wikipedia. The strength of the article is the depth of the knowledge they provide on a new topic. I think the article could be improved by either changing the language to be slightly less advanced in some places, or by linking to more articles to make the definitions of certain words easier to find, as they may not be common knowledge for the general public (eg hematuria, dysentery, lamina propria).