User:Bergkm0406/MaddieSwenson18PeerReview

Maddieswenson18 Peer Review
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Staphylococcal Infection
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I was assigned Maddie's article to review.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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, there is a box with subheadings with links to jump down into the articles
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It mentions infections that can be caused from it
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is detailed heavily but the details are good. The last sentence probably could be omitted.

Lead evaluation
The lead has good information, but so much of it probably could be grouped into another subheading that didn't need to be in the lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date? Some sources are on the older side of things, but if that's the best you can find and it's information that probably hasn't changed, I don't see the harm.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it all belongs

Content evaluation
The above answers pretty much sums it up, but I also like the order in which you added things.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes, it is
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
I don't think this is the kind of article that could have bias so I think you're good!

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Maybe it's just the view I'm in but I don't see the in text citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I feel like there might be more recent articles but I couldn't be sure
 * Are the sources current? Within the last 20 years
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
I feel like he might take off points from how old some sources are so if you are worried I might try to find others. That's just my opinion though.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I really like the order you put the subheadings in.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes, I believe so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The pictures of rashes are as visually appealing as possible.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's not rated
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It seems very helpful
 * What are the article's strengths? I think the signs and symptoms section is the strongest.
 * How can the article be improved? The epidemiology part is a little wordy and broad.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say it is well developed, maybe add a few stats in the epi part.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: