User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Eelgersma 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? Eveline.juce
 * 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 yet been completed and hence cannot be evaluated

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 that is currently added is relevant and contains the main points that Dr. Rubin suggested (diagnosis, zoonosis, identification, pathogenicity, etc...). It appears that the content that is currently there is up to date however there is still a lot of sections that have not been started yet.

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
It appears that the content is quite neutral. The content is presented in a factual manner. At this point in time there is a lot of information about the human manifestation of the disease however this is because many of the other sections have not yet been completed. No clear bias is present.

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
All the sources are quite current which is good (at this point in time the oldest one is from 2009). There are only 11 sources at this time however this is because many sections have not been written yet. Some of the sources are not secondary sources. for example https://jcm.asm.org/content/52/8/3118 contains case reports which are primary (not secondary) sources of information. The reference titled "Virulence factors in coagulase-positive staphylococci of veterinary interest other than Staphylococcus aureus" appears to be a reliable secondary source. The links that I clicked on worked.

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 organization of the current article is good. They have large bolded headings as well as subheadings when needed. There are a few grammatical errors under the "human manifestations" and some of the sentences could be more concise. I would suggest shortening some of the "Staphyloccus pseudintermedius" to just S. pseudintermedius so that there are less big words jumbling the page. It is hard to evaluate the organization of the overall article because I would like to see what specific information is added under each section. I would maybe suggest putting diagnosis after pathogenicity and virulence. I would also suggest adding some more links to other wikipedia pages (particularly under the zoonosis section- for example you could add links for words such as "microflora", "endocarditis", "bacteremia")

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
no images are added at this time.

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?

New Article Evaluation
this is not a new article.

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
The content added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article. The current public wikipedia article only contains 3 sentences and barely explains anything about the bacteria or what disease it causes. While there is still a lot of information that needs to be added to the current draft, I am sure it will be very complete once this group finishes each section. The content can be improved by adding in some images (could add photos of common lesions associated with infection, what the bacteria looks like etc...) and trying to structure the organization of the article in a logical order once everyone has finished their parts. Some more links could also be included (see above comments).

The strengths of the article are that they dive into areas that were not even mentioned in the current wiki article and they kept a non-biased tone. They also have some very recent articles that they have referenced (articles that have been published within the past 5 years) which adds really good credibility and up to date information!

Great job