User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Jessica.debruyne 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? Hayley.bowling
 * 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 it has been
 * 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 it briefly highlights the articles majors sections in a succinct way
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it doesn't. Everything that was included in the lead was discussed in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and well written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content added is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think everything relevant has been added and that nothing is out of place.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. The topic was not well covered previously and this group has done a great job getting the basics across about this bacteria.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel the article heavily focused on swine and could have had more about other species or other information about the bacteria in general although I do understand that greasy pig disease is what the bacteria is famous for
 * 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? The content seems reliable, however it is not all secondary literature.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are very thorough
 * Are the sources current? Many of the sources are older than 5 or even 10 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there is a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Out of the 5 links I checked, all worked but one of the DOI's did not work, however the link to the article did? Not sure how this happened (source 35, Alejandro Ramirez)

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part, the article was easy to read and very concise, but it seems as though some paragraphs read as "choppy" though. Although I know it is critical to keep things concise I feel some sentences could've been combined or a few words added to make the article flow better in some areas. In the "Resistance" section I found the information to be somewhat confusing; it first states that doing susceptibility testing showed that the bacteria was resistant to a number of antibiotics and the following sentence says further susceptibility testing was done but some of the antibiotics it was listed as resistant to say it is now susceptible. I feel like only the second sentence with updated susceptibility testing needs to be included. Additionally, I feel having this information in a table could be a good visual aid and easier to read than having it in a single sentence. Some areas in the disease f animals section could have more hyperlinks. For example, in the poultry section, I personally don't know what fowl pox is and could benefit from the addition of a hyperlink there.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the biochem and ID as well as the poultry disease section, Staphylococcus is spelled wrong. Additionally, I can see someone really likes the use of semicolons (me too!), but when using a semicolon followed by the word 'however', a comma needs to be added which wasn't always done. I also see some improper use of a semicolon in the epidemiological background and pathogenesis section. Small error in the poultry disease section, "be" typed as "e". In the human disease section talking about it being a risk if they work in close contact with pigs, it it typed "the" instead of "they". Also in that section, "culture of his culture bone and blood", I understands hat is trying to be said but not how it is supposed to be said. I've also noticed that the group hasn't been consistent with where they are placing their in text citations. For Wikipedia I believe they are supposed to be after the period but this is not consistent throughout the article. In the treatment section, Staphylococcus hyicus is not italicized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I thought it was very well organized!

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 two pictures that help showcase what the bacteria looks like when cultured and gram stained, and an example of greasy pig disease in a piglet.
 * Are images well-captioned? The piglet picture is well captioned but something seems off about the caption for the bacteria. Maybe the fact that it seems like its written in passive, not active voice.
 * 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? The list of sources is very exhaustive, although not all current. I feel it does represent lots of available literature on the topic
 * 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
 * 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? Definitely!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article was well written and the content was easy to read. The hyperlinks added were very useful and I think the ones added are appropriate to help a lay person understand their article if they come across this page. I really liked the use of the pictures they added in and I feel the layout was great. The use of subsections was really helpful to nicely separate and organize the article and the order of information was really good!
 * How can the content added be improved? To improve the paper, I would make sure to be consistent with in text citations, as well as ensuring that everything has been read through thoroughly to make sure there is proper spelling and grammar. I really think it would be useful to try to add more about other animals in the disease section aside from swine although I do understand that this is a significant area. I just feel the other animals were somewhat underrepresented.