User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Cheryl Linaksita 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: User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius

Lead evaluation
The lead describes the bacteria in good detail, and identifies the type of bacteria and the genus. The writers also concisely describe the bacteria's general importance in health.

Content evaluation
A lot of detail is put into describing pathogenicity of the bacteria. The content is well organized into ways the bacteria is able to transmit and the relevant risk factors associated with it.

A lot of detail is also put into the virulence factors of the bacteria, which has up-to-date references. Subheadings make the content easy to follow and organized.

Tone and balance evaluation
There aren't any heavily biased claims made. The content appears to be factually neutral with relevant references.

Sources and references evaluation
Many of the references are up-to-date and within the past decade. Most of them are from reputable and relevant journals from various sources (e.g. Veterinary Dermatology to outline disease, and Microbiology journals).

Reference 12 is not properly linked. Sends a link to the University library sign-in page.

Organization evaluation
Sections are broken up in a way that is easy to follow. Perhaps the article could have the 2nd headers (Identification, Diagnosis, Epidemiology, etc.) as 1st headers? Instead of having 2 primary sections (S. pseudintermedius and References).

Subsections can be made under that so the article is more broken up into separate parts.

Images and media evaluation
Not applicable

Overall evaluation
A well put-together article that utilizes lots of up-to-date references to create a factually organized piece without making overly biased claims.