User:Alisha.alt047/Staphylococcus schleiferi/Alyssa.Vickers Peer Review

General info
Review of Staphylococcus schleiferi

Users: Daniela.dbs534, Cheryl Linaksita, Grace.Snyder, Tiffany.chl903, Alisha.alt047

Link: User:Alisha.alt047/Staphylococcus schleiferi

Content, Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is neutral throughout, and there does not appear to be any heavy bias towards one position. There is no persuading content, and all of the material seems very objective and factual, touching on all of the available research on S. schleiferi. There may be a few minimal areas that could benefit from elaboration. For example in the diagnosis section maybe you could specify the specific temperature your bacteria is best cultured at, or how readily/easy is the organism to culture, or maybe elaborating a bit further on the coagulating testing or additional tests that can be performed. Other than that, the content all seems up to date and relevant to the topic.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources. There are a wide depth of sources used, all of which appear to be relevant. Most sources are current, some are becoming dated, but look like valuable research that has a place within the article. There may be a couple statements that could benefit from the use of a citation- such as a few sentences in the pyoderma, cell morphology, and biochemistry and identification sections. Also, available research may be lacking, but I wonder if it would be possible to elaborate further on the most common animal species for zoonotic transmission of the bacteria.

Organization
I am impressed by depth of research into your bacteria of choice. The content is well written, and not too dense or long. It is easy to read and follow as well. The organization of categories/headings seems to be in a good flowing order as well, for example- it seems logical to begin with history and end with diagnosis such as your group did.