User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Caitlyn.Barry Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your 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? Sag064, Eveline.juce, Kellee Lekavy, Jessie.jkh912, 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? Not yet.
 * 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

Unfortunately, cannot comment on the lead section as there is not currently one other than the pre-existing lead section.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The material that is currently present is relevant as it on pathogenicity, virulence and zoonosis.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Currently, all the added content is up to date from what I could find.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Currently there are sections not yet complex so cannot comment fully. The sections lacking material right now are cellular morphology and biochemistry, diagnosis and epidemiology. Once these sections are completed I would be better able to access this point. But what is provided includes information that is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this topic was previously lacking content.

Content evaluation

It was hard to fully evaluate the content as some section have yet to have information added to them. That being said the sections that contain content (pathogenicity, virulence and zoonosis) are well laid out and the material is relevant to advancing the topic material and are logical section to include.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, neutral tone for what is currently provided.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are states that outline this is an ongoing researched area, so information may change as more work is published.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think it has balanced viewpoints for the material that is present.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the subject is scientific, meaning that research is primarily guiding this topic. In order for no bias statements like this work is ongoing or more research is being conducted etc. These statements allow for the reader to know there is no bias and that some information may change as new evidence becomes available.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, I felt the sections completed were in a neutral tone and when talking about certain section it mentioned that research is ongoing therefore the claims may change as newer information becomes available this avoids a bias being present.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the content is backed by many sources, some are not secondary which I feel is ok as finding secondary summary material on this topic is challenging and it’s a field of ongoing study meaning that as more material is available the more there will be secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The references are for many different researchers.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors of the sources a appear to all be different and diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Reference 12 needs to be updated.

Sources and references evaluation

The references used although they are not all secondary I am ok with as this is an expanding research topic and as new information becomes available then more secondary sources can be added to confirm the primary research outcomes. The only reference I noticed to have an issue is reference 12 otherwise the rest are linking correctly.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Cannot say for certain as the topic is not complete but the headings provided appear logical and easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there is a spelling mistake poisoning instead of (posioning). I am also not sure if on going should be ongoing and people who are instead of people whom are.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content appear to be in well-organized sections and reflect topics that are relevant.

Organization evaluation

The organization right now seems to have logical section headings with smaller subheadings to make the material more accessible. As mentioned above I think there is a spelling mistake and possibly some grammatical changes. Wish I would be able to comment on all the sections.

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

Currently there are no images attached, therefore I cannot comment. It might be nice to add a photo of what the bacteria morphology under a microscope on a culture.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Once all the sections are complete then the article will be much more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? For the sections that are present the content allows the reader to understand how the bacteria can cause disease and why it is a problem
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Once all the sections have material I would be able to provide a more in-depth review of the entire article. But what is currently available is comprehensive and necessary for the understanding of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. As mentioned above a few minor tweaks in term of editing but the tone is neutral and there is not over represented viewpoint. Also, just editing reference 12. The lead will need to tie all the section together to give the reader a brief synopsis of what is to come. I wish I could have provided more of a peer review (I waited a few weeks hoping there would be more so I could provide more feedback). Hopefully you will find my limited suggestions helpful!