User:Morgan.kelley123/Brachyspira pilosicoli/Kelsey.brandt Peer Review

Peer review

General info

I am reviewing the work of Ttjjarrett, ACrookes, Dixon.alexa, Amanda.amc513, Morgan.kelley123 for the Brachyspira pilosicoli article.

Lead

The lead gives a good introduction to the bacterium and maintains neutral tone. It includes a variety of sources and a good depth of information. It is general enough that it will invite the reader to continue to read subsequent sections.

Content

The content of the article is strong and balanced. The disease section is particularly strong in its layout as it uses sub-headings that make the content more organized and more easily understandable to the reader. The section on zoonotic potential is extremely thorough. It emphasizes the risk to both animal and human health which is imperative, however, I think this section could be made a bit more concise. The information in this section could also potentially be split up throughout the article to decrease the bulk of the final section and make the article a bit more balanced.

There are a variety of sources cited in this article which increases its strength as an informational resource.

Tone and Balance

The tone of this article is exceptional, as it remains neutral and represents a wide variety of implications of the pathogen. The content does not read as persuasive, it is simply educational and will benefit those who are wanting to learn more about the pathogen.

Sources and References

This article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. The sources are current and seem to represent a vast amount of information that is available on the topic.

Organization

The content of the article is organized and well-written. It is concise and clear. The sections still require more balancing as the bulk of the article is in the last section, but it is a good start to the article.

Images and Media

The images provided are well-labeled and add to the information provided in the article. More images should be added to increase the visual appeal of the article and aid in understanding of the topic for the readers.

New Article Evaluation

This article follows similar patterns to other Wikipedia articles. It remains neutral in tone, and provides information for the reader in terms that are easy to understand. It sources a variety of reliable secondary sources that are available for the current research on the topic.

Overall impressions

Overall I think this article still requires information to be added to the earlier sections in order to make it more balanced. The zoonotic potential section seems to be very thorough, but proportionally adds bulk to the end of the article in comparison to the other sections.