User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Dixon.alexa 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) Agar.baa124, Amber.amc259, Caitlyn.Barry, Hayley.bowling, Lauren.lmb242
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence concisely describes the bacterium.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the articles major sections (with the exception of virulence and resistance) are described in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the dates of their references range from 2019 to the 1980s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is a variety of references, the majority of which are secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the majority of the sources were published within the last twenty years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 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, the article is well organized and the sections are concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling errors and any grammatical errors are minor.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are images in the article showing presentation of clinical signs and a photo of the bacteria.
 * Are images well-captioned? The first image in the article is described as potentially being S.hyicus but it is impossible to tell without further diagnostics. It may be more beneficial for the viewer if the image is described as "showing the gram positive cocci in clusters that is associated with S. hyicus".
 * 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?
 * 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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is well organized and provides a thorough explanation of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? There is some overlap of content between sections, this could be edited to make the article more concise.