User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus/Vanessa.vec011 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: Staphylococcus hyicus User:Hayley.bowling/Staphylococcus hyicus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - I am impressed by the concise yet informative lead paragraph
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead could include humans in the list of species in which S. hyicus causes disease. In addition, a short mention of the virulence factors would round out the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes - very well cited
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No - the article is well thought out and well structured; everything appears to be relevant and necessary.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No and no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No "claims" per se - the article focuses mostly on pigs (as these are the most important species affected by S. hyicus), however there is mention of the other species as well.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As mentioned above, pigs are the predominant focus of the article, however this makes sense given that S. hyicus causes an important and characteristic disease in pigs ("greasy pig disease").
 * 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 article is well cited overall. I happened to click on a thesis cited when I was checking links - this would be considered primary literature and also non-peer reviewed literature, so I'm not sure if that is the best choice to include. Not to be too critical, but it does seem that there is a fair mix of primary literature within the sources. I personally think primary literature is very informative and the only way to move science forward!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Sources cited range from the 1970s to the 2010s, so there is quite a range. This isn't surprising to me given that notable sources tend to be review articles and may only be published every once in a while.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, and I'm not sure.
 * 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
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - very thoroughly organized. It would be easy for someone to navigate the page and find the information he/she is looking for.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes - the pictures are a nice touch.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I can tell.
 * 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? Absolutely! This is an in depth and well researched article on Staphylococcus hyicus.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Thorough, well cited, lots of pertinent information. Well laid out and easy to navigate.
 * How can the content added be improved? Try to avoid non-peer reviewed articles (like a thesis) where possible.