User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis/Jack.Jeg724 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? Tory.yont, Catherine.beaupre, Rebecca.Walder, Hannah.hgs990, Charlie.swain17
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tory.yont/Taylorella equigenitalis
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not as yet.
- 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? Maybe slightly too concise.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead has not been updated with the information added at this time.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Seems to be
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
- 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
[edit]Content is good, generally. There are some conflicts for example: Ecology Dist and hab notes cases in both horses and rats whereas the host range section of Pathogenesis says cases are only in horses.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]Even tone and balance throughout.
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? Seem to
- Are the sources current? yes
- 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? Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Good review of a variety of current sources.
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]There are some grammatical and spelling errors, expected in a draft. The content is clear to a vet student, although some sections may be a little technical language heavy for the everyday reader. Very well organised.
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]No images included
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]Overall quality and breadth of information is vastly improved! Well done team!