User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Sns229 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? 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, the lead has an in depth outline of the new information added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - It's first sentence is concise, but I think it could maybe encompass what disease it causes most commonly to describe the article a little better.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Yes, in the lead, a overall summary of the main sections is included.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all of the information present in the lead can be found elsewhere in the article as well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - I think this lead is quite concise and does a good job with giving an overview of the topic, without going into an abundance of detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, their information directly relates to Staph. hyicus.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the information added here was up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I am able to recognize. I feel they did a good job with covering a good amount of the bacteria without going into the extremely fine details that would be lost to lay people.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is no bias that I can find.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There really isnt many view points in this article as it is mostly all fact, as it should be.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the information is factual and reference based.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources used are peer reviewed and seem to be reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they seemed to use a multitude of references to cover a wide array of information.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are current, although some of them are from the late 1900's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links that I checked were functional

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? some of the sentences seem a little run on, but over all it is rather well written. I would suggest reading it out loud to isolate the more awkward wording.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were one or 2 grammatical errors and places where adding a comma would have helped, buy I did not notice any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, their sections were broken down into relevant topics.

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 picture depicting the lesions usually associated on pigs with the disease.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, if feel that their captions could be more formally written.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, they are just to the right of the article.

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, there are many reliable secondary sources listed.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes, they have 48 different references that represent a broad range in the literature.
 * 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, it looks like a normal Wikipedia page and is easy to follow.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? there are many links within the article to other Wikipedia pages so it is more easily navigated.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, the information added has made the article more complete and have provided good references to associated material.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? a larger over view of the bacteria and its associated disease.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think had they added more pictures and reviewed the grammar used a little more, it would have benefitted the article even more.