User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Carley.lodge 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? (Shelby.slk600)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Staphylococcus pseudintermedius

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, the intro is very well written and highlights key points.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes clearly states that the article is about Staphylococcus pseudintermedius.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, however I feel it would be beneficial to mention what type of oprotunistic infections it causes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and to the point about topics included in the article

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes there are references from 2020 and within the last 5 years, but there are some older sources as well but not the majority
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? more clarification on treatment for domestic animals would be beneficial
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes this article was written due to a gap of wikipedia knowledge base

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, is factual based

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are a few primary resources such as case reports
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes they have 39 sources
 * 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 overall this article is easy to read for the average reader. I think it would be beneficial to add in a table summarizing the plating characteristics for easy viewing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? the name of the species (pseudintermedius) should be italicized in all paragraphs and its missing that particularly in the biochemical tests section. In the epidemiological section in the second sentence is missing a space in "S. pseudintermedius has been"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the topics are well broken down and in an order that makes sense and flows well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? no there are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A - no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes they have many resources 39
 * 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, they have an infobox typical of wikipedia articles, and have relevant headings and subheadings
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? This article is overall very well written. There are a few sentences that could be reorganized to flow better, however enjoy that this article can be easily read by the public. I enjoyed the topics included for the article which helped me understand main points.
 * How can the content added be improved? Summary table for the plating characteristics would be beneficial, as well as adding an image. I think it would be beneficial for group members to read each others work to allow consistent information throughout. for example in the epidemiological section they mention vertical and horizontal transmission, but when mentioned in the paragraph of pathogenicity and virulence it only mentions and describes vertical transmission. In the zoonosis section the last two sentences are saying the same things and would benefit from removing the second last sentance. Another note about the zoonosis section I have is that It made me ask why can't I use antibiotics for domestic animals and only humans? A little more clarification or added information would help.