User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli/Jaskaran.purba Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? Ttjjarrett, ACrookes, Dixon.alexa, Amanda.amc513, Morgan.kelley123
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, and you can also include a brief pathology Brachyspira causes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, however; a bit of history can be added in there
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The length is short. History and Pathology can be added in a brief form.
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, edits were made fairly recently,
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Perhaps Epidemiology can also be included
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article presents an overall concise summary!
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, there is no bias present
- 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[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
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, as most are publications
- Are the sources current? Yes, most of them at least.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
- Check a few links. Do they work? All of them work
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly yes; however the first paragraph can be shortened as it is very wordy.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!
Organization evaluation[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
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? Hopefully, yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are very appealing
Images and media evaluation[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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?
New Article Evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is definitely reaching final stages of completion!
- What are the strengths of the content added? It has a logical flow to it, and is in neutral and understandable tone for a member of general public to understand.
- How can the content added be improved? The Zoonotic potential section can shortened and made less wordy.