User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Kaitlyn.kfw288 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? Staphylococcus hyicus group (under Hayley.bowling)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Staphylococcus hyicus

Lead
The lead does a great job at giving the basic important information about the morphological characteristics of the bacterium and the most notable disease that it causes as well as whether it is an important zoonosis. I would argue that even though there isn't a concise introductory single sentence, that the first few sentences do a great job at summarizing their article. I do wish however, that the degree of importance to the pig industry had been touched on in the summary so a reader could immediately know if this is a well known production limiting disease or something that isn't of great economic detriment.

Praise for including the importance of susceptibility testing right in the lead!

Content
I found all the content added to be very relevant to the topic and liked that since the disease aspect is most notable in swine, that prevention of disease focused on swine. I do wish that there was information included on how prevalent the disease is worldwide and if this is a major concern, where all farms should be vaccinating or if just herds with predisposing factors?

Additionally I was impressed with the conciseness of the biochemistry and identification section, as I had a similar section in my own article and was having a hard time doing this when historically there have been so many methods used that change over time. Along that line though, I am wondering if perhaps molecular methods or other new technologies like MALDI-TOF are now more likely used and if there should be more emphasis on the molecular methods that might be preferred for identification (PCR, qPCR, whole genome sequencing etc.) I haven't done the research for this bacterium though, so I could be totally off base here!

I really enjoyed the management section of this article as it seems to be a very important aspect of controlling disease and I thought that it was highlighted appropriately and went into the necessary depth due to its importance.

This is a nit-picky thing, but in the heading of "Disease in all species" it's impossible to include all species so I would consider rewording this heading.

I did not see anything that was irrelevant in the content, and did not see any equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
All of the content appears neutral and though the content is heavy in swine aspect, I think this is appropriate and is still written from a neutral, scientific voice. I think that the tone and balance is well done and "sounds" like a Wikipedia article.

Sources and References
Most of the sources seem reliable and secondary. Looking over the references, I did notice that a few sources were from the 70's and 80's so I'm afraid that they may be considered slightly out of date.

Also it appears that the information on disease in Horses relies on two primary research articles from the 80's. My concern with that is if there hasn't been a review on it since this research came out in the 80's, is it significant enough in horses to include in the Wikipedia article?

All the links that I tried worked!

Organization
I think that all the content is well written, clear and concise and I did not catch any grammar or spelling errors. I really liked how this article is organized because it goes from a broad overview including taxonomy and history and general diseases caused in different species, and then it gives added information about the most notable aspect of the bacteria which is the impact of disease in swine. I am however, wishing that susceptibility testing maybe had it's own section either within the identification section or within treatment as I think that would help highlight it's importance and make that information more readily available to the reader.

Images and Media
I like the addition of the gram positive cocci in the lead section as it highlights and makes the morphology more tangible. However I'm not sure that the vaccine image in the prevention of disease section really add much other than visual interest. Maybe there is an image hat is more specific to autogenous vaccines? I like the sow and piglets image, because it highlights barn management as well as passive immunity transfer.

For New Articles Only
I think that this article definitely meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements since the bacteria does have clinical significance and there are numerous secondary sources that have been cited. I am not sure how to tell if the article is linked to other articles though, so I cannot say whether it is more discoverable.

Overall impressions
This is a well organized and well written article that does a great job at covering the major topics of concern when talking about bacteria (morphology, ID, virulence, pathologies associated etc.) and it also delves into the more notable topic of Greasy pig disease in adequate depth, though I would be really curious to know its impact/prevalence within swine herds as I think that would help evaluate its importance. Great work!