User:Madlynlung/Actinomyces bovis/Katelynmcewen Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Madlynlung, Dana.dll023, Cah656, Sophiejones14, Lucas.grist
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Madlynlung/Actinomyces bovis
Lead
[edit]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
[edit]I am unsure if the lead has been updated, as it eludes to most of the sections of information included in the draft, but is still missing mentions of the treatment, prevention, or economics of this organism. The introductory sentences introduce the topic and the organism in a concise and understandable way, but it does mention the clinical disease presentation in humans, which is not elaborated elsewhere in the article. The authors may want to delete this portion of the lead, or add another paragraph in the "role in disease" section about clinical disease in humans.
Content
[edit]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
[edit]The content of the article is definitely relevant to the topic, and it includes a well rounded look at all of the aspects of this pathogen. A good proportion of the references used (except, logically, in the section regarding the history of the organism) are from after 2015, so the information contained in the article is relatively up to date. I don't believe that anything is missing from the article, as all important aspects are well represented.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]The tone of the article is very neutral, with no particular viewpoints being overrepresented or biased. The authors do not attempt to sway the reader in any particular way, they merely provide a thorough education on this organism.
Sources and References
[edit]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
[edit]There are a wide variety of sources, with many being very recent. All of the links that were checked were functional. I do believe at least one more source should be added to meet the 25 source requirement.
Organization
[edit]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
[edit]The page is organized in a very logical and easy to navigate format. Each paragraph is very well written, with a professional tone, and a great flow throughout.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]The image that is currently used on the page is definitely useful in picturing the clinical signs of the disease. The caption explains the image well, and it complies with copyright regulations. If the authors did want to add more images, it might be a good idea to choose an image that showcases the morphology of the organism itself, for those that are not familiar with branching, rod shaped bacteria.
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]The overall article is certainly more complete, and all important aspects of this organism are well represented. The sections regarding the clinical syndrome, treatment, and prevention are particularly thorough, and would be very useful to anybody interested in the disease related to this bacteria. I do not think that anything should be added, everything is concise and comprehensive, anything else would be extra fluff and would dilute the current info!