User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Angela.any431 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? (provide username)

Hayley.bowling, Caitlyn.Barry, Lauren.lmb242, Amber.amc259, Agar.baa124


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The content in the lead mostly mentions each of the subsections in the article, but did not touch on biochemistry and identification (in the Microbiology subsection).


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the introductory sentence clearly introduces Staphylococcus hyicus as the topic of the article


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes it does (as stated above)


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead mostly does not contain new information, aside form a brief mention of bacteremia and sepsis in zoonotic cases that was not mentioned in the Disease subsection for humans. There is also mention of the epidemiology of the disease in the lead without having a separate section on the topic in the body of the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise and informative.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes I believe the content is relevant.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, most of the sources are within the 20th century, within the last 10 years.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The main thing missing in the article is the Epidemiology section. There is brief mention of the distribution of the organism in the lead but no specific subsection.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Not particularly? Are pig farmers underrepresented? Maybe.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes the tone is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, equal weight is placed on each position.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, all viewpoints are equally represented.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the content is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, some of the sentences in the article are not associated with a citation (see Lead, Resistance, and Disease sections). The essential oils subsection is also written from information from a primary source.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources are very thorough (45 sources!)


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, as mentioned above, most of the sources are fairly recent (within the last 10 years)


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

I think so?


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes it is concise, clear, and easy to read.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not that I can find.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the sections are broken down well and aren't too long each.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The image in the lead is good for visualizing the morphology of the bacterium, but that is the only image in the article.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes it is well-captioned.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

I believe so.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There is only one image, but I think it's appropriately placed.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes it has made the article more complete than before.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

It offers a more complete understanding of the microbiology, pathogenesis, host range, and prevention/treatment of the bacterium.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Add an epidemiology section