User:Alisha.alt047/Staphylococcus schleiferi/Sag064 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? (https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Daniela.dbs534)
 * 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? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No its well done.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? YEP
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I wouldn't know!? This wasn't my topic, but it all seems just fine.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes Wiki had really little on this topic beforehand.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that isn't backed up well with reference.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope, pretty even.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No... its bacteria.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, or otherwise with multiple solid primary sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Where they can be.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Didn't have time to run background checks on each author of each reference but let us assume yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes very interesting points made, good detail but concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Maybe one misplaced comma but I'll make sure to tell her
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes very nicely, it was organized to make it very easy to pull out specific information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Sure
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes it looks good. For class purposes, supported well by both primary and secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? This is an abosolutely crazy question to ask a non expert of any subject. But yes its well balanced, well supported, well written.
 * 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? Yes, looks really well organized.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

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
Daniela did a really great job on her article. Their whole group did. It is written accessibly but also well detailed, which is an important balance to meet for open source material. She followed the wiki guidelines, and clearly understood what was asked of her. I think it will be very helpful to those in the future who are seeking information on this bacterium.

I'm at a loss of constructive criticism to give. It was clearly well thought out and edited, supported by good quality sources. There is an astounding lack of available information on many bacterial species, which was addressed where necessary. The information that is available on the virulence of this sp. appears to be well described where the literature allows. Looks exactly like what I hope a wiki article will look like when I search a topic. Good job!