User:Vanessa.vec011/Campylobacter fetus/Agar.baa124 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? Campylobacter fetus group
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Campylobacter fetus

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is currently small with little information to guide us through the content of what will be covered on the page. So far, the content is limited.
• 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? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, but with limited information as of yet.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Currently yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Currently, in the sections speaking of Morphology and Identification, and Pathogenesis some references are from the 80s, 90s and very early 2000s which could be indicative of information that is not up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Currently there is content missing as the group has not moved all things from sandbox to the actual wiki page.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation

Overall the content that is available at this time is sufficient, yet I wish the sources used to garner the information were more current.

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

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall the tone of the sections that are complete at this time are well balanced.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not quite
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The secondary sources used are thorough
• Are the sources current? Not all
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Some sources used are primary sources therefore do not meet the requirement of being a reliable secondary source.

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

Organization evaluation

Good

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?