User:Alisha.alt047/Staphylococcus schleiferi/Kendram.kbm856 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? Alisha.alto47
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alisha.alt047/Staphylococcus schleiferi

Lead
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
The lead of this article has a strong opening that makes it clear what the article is about. The lead as a whole is very detailed and references what is to come later in the article very well.

Content
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
The table of contents is well laid out and very detailed. All of the sub topics included are relevant and organized in a logical manner.

Tone and Balance
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
The content of this article is neutral and informative. It does slightly lean to being written from a veterinary medical perspective, rather than human medicine, but that's not a negative point and makes sense in the context of the article.

Sources and References
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
All of the sources cited are very reliable. Some are more than 20 years old, but that doesn't mean they aren't still a relevant source of information. All of the links I checked worked.

Organization
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
The article is very concise, clear and easy to follow. The content is well organized and flows in a logical way. My only comment to add would be that it might make more sense to put diagnostics information prior to disease presentation, rather than after, but that's just personal preference.

Images and Media
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
The images used are relevant and well captioned. I think including some photos of clinical presentation was a good idea because it could be helpful for readers without a medical background. The images are placed well to tie into the article information and seem to be cited appropriately.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article is thorough, well written and engaging. The content is easy to follow and written at a level that is appropriate for both readers with and without a medical background. The topics covered are relevant without becoming overwhelming and the sections are well labeled to make specific information easy to find. Really well done.