User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Courtney.Cameron.cac024 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 and group)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius

Lead - n/a
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No lead is currently available.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? n/a
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? n/a
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? n/a

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, the content describes various aspects of the bacterium well. All content added is relevant and does a good job of giving a brief overview of several aspects such as morphology, diagnosis, pathogenesis, virulence factors and zoonotic potential.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - yes, the majority of references have been published within the last 10 years. Some references were even published this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - no.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - yes, I felt as though the content was only stating facts. I did not feel as though any specific opinions were allowed to come through.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - no.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - content may have leaned towards cats and dogs - which in the context of our vet med course, makes sense; though a general wikipedia article might want to equally describe host species
 * 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? - for the most part - some references are primary research papers, though the content taken from them is more general information rather than new information coming from their specific research.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - yes, the references include a wide range from dermatology journals to human medicine journals to general veterinary medicine resources like merck manual.
 * Are the sources current? - yes, most are current within the last 10yrs
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - yes. I like how both veterinary and human medicine researches are utilized to give a wide range of knowledge.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - yup

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - some areas of the zoonotic potential section may be a bit wordy, but not too bad
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - there were a few spelling errors that I noticed, but they probably just haven't edited it yet.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes, the sections are laid out nicely. I feel like the flow of the article is logical; for example, it starts with general information about the bacterium (ie morphology and biochemical aspects), then carries into diagnosis and virulence and finally ends with zoonotic potential and resistance.

Images and Media - n/a
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

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? - yes, the added material is definitely more complete than what the article originally was; they do a good job of briefly mentioning the overall status of the literature on this bacterium without going into so much detail that it would be overwhelming to a general audience.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - the added content covers a much broader basis of pathogenesis and zoonotic potential
 * How can the content added be improved? - adding some images in would be appealing to the audience. Additionally, I noticed some areas where words could have embedded links in them to help the general audience with definitions (ie hemolysis, vertical transmission, etc). Finally, just make sure to edit and review the article prior to submission as there are a few spelling mistakes throughout