User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Coral.williams 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 and group
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Staphylococcus hyicus

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? I think it has a little too much information specific to pigs and should have been kept more general to the bacterium.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, all is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * some of the sources were older and would have been nice to see more updated sources from within the last 5 years. I know this can be hard.
 * 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?
 * I think that the article was good to add to a disease in animals especially in swine that definitely many would not know about.

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?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they have a lot of different sources to cover the information on the topic
 * Are the sources current? many are older sources. more than 5 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes they have a long list that they used to attain the information for the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. There are some spots where could have made better sentencing some areas are short and choppy ie morphological characteristics maybe could have done easy to read bullet points for this.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one. would have been nice so see an image of a pig with the disease.
 * Are images well-captioned? the one is yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * 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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? LONG there are probably many more but for the information included is a good list of varied sources.
 * 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 it is nicely laid out.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I think so...yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the added content made the article actually helpful and easy to access information from a wide array of sources in one.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They cover many different species so can see how it affects each differently and the information is in a good order for reading to understand the material.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that vaccination should have been after management as we don't want to vaccinate as a first line. Also think a general prevention for all species not just pigs should be included, although I know is mainly a concern in pigs.

Overall evaluation
GREAT JOB! I know its hard with everything else we have to do.