User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Rebecca.Walder 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, Caitlyn.Barry, Lauren.lmb242, Amber.amc259, Agar.baa124
 * 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 appears to be finished and is well rounded.
 * 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. There is a table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it appears to be a concise over view of what to expect just explained in a simple effective matter. They go in more detail in the specific sections for each topic outlined in the table of contents.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, while still covering all the important facts that someone might be looking for if performing a quick google search.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It appears to be. They included very recent (2019) papers and all information seems to be relevant and accurate to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is not missing information that I am aware of. The information they included is satisfactory to my knowledge. They remain on topic throughout the Wikipedia page.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I do not feel as if I'm being swayed to think about the information in a certain way. There does not seem to be bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. I feel that the information was written in a neutral tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. All sections are equally addressed.
 * 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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. There are references from mid1900's to 2019. I feel that thorough research and reading took place before addressing each topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * 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. There was once sentence incomplete or there was an added word that I had to re-read to understand, but as this is still in their sandbox I would expect that editing and a final grammar edit will still take place. "The condition is caused by exfoliative toxins that S. hyicus that disrupt desmosomal junctions thus allowing for invasion" I have underlined the confusing/mis-worded section of the sentence.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few grammar errors. No spelling errors that I came across.
 * "S. hyicus exfoliative toxin (SHET) producing strains are further divided, there are plasmid carrying (SHETB) and plasmidless (SHETA) ." I have underlined the area in one of the sentences that I believe should be restructured as a common doesn't feel quite right. Maybe a use of a ";" or ":" or re-worded "further into..."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The sections flow nicely and are evenly discussed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes they included a photo of the gram positive clusters that form.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not 100% confident. It is not on the published page and it is the "own work of a wiki user" not of this sandbox. If they got permission to use it then 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. There are more sections and each section now has equal supporting information making the Wikipedia page more balanced and well rounded.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information in the lead follows the flow of the rest of the page. The content is written in a non-biased manner. The wording of the new information is at a level that anyone researching this bacterium should be able to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? A final edit/review should be performed to eliminate any grammar errors and more photos could be added. Possibly a photo of the clinical signs in an animal infected with this bacterium.