User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Amber.amc259 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) Shelby.slk600
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been complete enough that I feel I can review it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and well researched. The content is the most up to date information on the species and is a fair representation of its characteristics. There is still a significant amount of content that needs to be added, but what is there is well done and informative.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and follows the science at this time. The authors are clearly conveying information and not attempting to persuade. They do not make claims that are based on opinion and their sources and subsequent article lack heavy bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the sources are primary sources which reflects that there is not that much information on the subject at this time. To combat this often multiple sources are used to confirm the same information. The sources are current and the links work. I did find that one of Ev's sources about the infection being more common in males seemed to be a very small sample and Im not sure the difference was significant enough to say that that is a trend we actually see. The sources on biofilms and resistance I found particularly strong though.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written. It is free of any large grammatical or spelling errors. I did find that in some chunks of text and in some lists (especially the immune modulating virulence factor section) that it was hard to follow and used language I don't think the average person not well versed in microbiology would understand. I thought the first half of the pathogenicity and virulence section was particularly well written.

I do think this article would benefit from the sections being in a different order. I think it would make more sense to put pathogenicity after identification. This could then be followed with epidemiology and zoonotic potential. I think virulence factors needs to be condensed and added to pathogenicity, because right now it makes up too much of the article.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
There is no images yet in this 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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This content has added a lot to what was done before it. The article is become much more through and complete and is much more detailed than the public article that they started with. The content is in depth an neutral. It adds a lot more of our current understanding of the species and is much more detailed than the stump article. The organization and language can be improved in some places. In some areas the article goes too in depth in genomics and factors that I don't think are as relevant. There is still sections to add, and the lead in needs to be written, so the article can be improved in this way. Overall, I think the sources and what has been written so far is a good start and you guys should continue the direction you are going!