User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Madlynlung 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus_pseudintermedius

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, I think the lead is missing some key points from the main body of the article. I think they should introduced its resistance and its role as a zoonoses as to link the later paragraphs.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but very generally.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is concise but too general and missing some important aspects of the bacteria that they discuss later on.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * 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
 * 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.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Mostly, yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is a diverse range of journals and authors.
 * 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
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, but its a bit confusing just with the different font sizes. I think they should add lines to break up their major sections making it easier to read.

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


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

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? NA this is not a new article this is an edited article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? no, but there are a lot of sources which is good.
 * 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? missing pictures and other helpful graphics.
 * 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? The content added seems to include a lot of important information on the subject that people might be interested in, or have trouble finding elsewhere.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the importance of its resistance and zoonoses could be emphasized more and the article itself could be better organized to highlight those important aspects and make it easier to read using section breaks.