User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Michelle.mge790 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
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? More than a sentence, but yes, I think it is a good summary.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does this well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, if anything the article contains more information (expands on topics).
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead is very well done, not too little not too much.

Lead evaluation
I liked how you summarized what you had in your article into a short paragraph. However, I also have a feeling that most people may not know what disruption of desmosomal junctions are. Though you don't want to be overly descriptive, perhaps an extra few words about why that is important - instead of "allowing invasion" you could say, allowing penetration into the skin, or something to that matter.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Certainly looks like it
 * 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? I'm not sure what this is asking, but if this is asking about studies in humanities - I don't think this applies here. If is asking about whether the content needs updating - yes I think they are working in the right area.

Content evaluation
I noticed that in many of the sections there was inconsistent usage of the referencing format. That is, people were putting the references before the punctuation, rather than after. Wikipedia likes it to be after the punctuation - so just check and make sure that is fixed before you go online. Another thing that stuck out to me was the 4th header "Role of S. hyicus in Exudative Epidermitis (Greasy Pig Disease)". In comparison to the other headings - this one is rather long, and maybe a tad too specific. Is there a way you could make it more concise, such as just saying "Exudative Epidermitis" or "Role in Greasy Pig Disease". Just a thought!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, it is rather stating the facts about the disease.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again, they are writing in the proper scientific format.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO

Tone and balance evaluation
Very well done here, but then again, not sure how you would easily make scientific evidence subjective (although I'm sure it can be done).

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
 * Are the sources current? yes - I was impressed by this- most are published in the 2000s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, they include authors from other countries, government documents and peer reviewed medical journals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes as a matter of fact, they do!

Sources and references evaluation
nice complete list - although I'm not sure what all the red "check values in date" mean. Maybe when it goes away when you'll publish it.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall, very well done and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not outright - but some sentences are a little bit funny, using statements like "being immunocompromised" in the virulence section, when there might be a way to put this that is easier to read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? As I said earlier - the fourth section is a little funny - but otherwise well organized. Personally I would put treatment after diagnosis, then prevention, but the way you have it also works.

Organization evaluation
Nice job, but switching the 2 last sections, and modifying that one header might improve it!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Interesting picture. Improves quality of content

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Absolutely!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very comprehensive and well referenced.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps making explanations a little less technical for average readers.

Overall evaluation
Very nice job, just a couple of changes and you'll be golden! I suspect that some of the content might be a little too scientific for the average reader - but I think we are all running into this problem, nice readability, but possibly a few more links - such as "chondro-necrosis" which I don't think the average reader would understand.