User:Kaitlyn.kfw288/Campylobacter upsaliensis/Melanie.Roulin 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? Kaitlyn.kfw288, Carling.cas365, MadisonAudeau, Tegan.tcr517, Jaskaran.purba
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Campylobacter upsaliensis

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
• 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? yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? very concise!

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? Nope, all the important headings are present
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No...unless we're talking about the general under representation of the importance of bacteria

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

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? there are both newer sources and some older ones which is great!
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? current references look like they are from reputable sources
• 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? very concise and easy to read, I appreciate all the sub headings! It really breaks up the article and makes it easier to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not anymore!
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!

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? I believe so
• 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
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, 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?
  • The content added has improved the article so far, even more so when it's complete
• What are the strengths of the content added? good sources and good base to work on
• How can the content added be improved? adding more information