User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Marley.and.shadow 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? Staphylococcus pseudintermedius
 * 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 peers?
 * 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
''I believe that the group is still working on their lead as there are some sections that are still being written So far, the lead has a good introductory sentence and includes information that is included in the article. It is concise thus far.''

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
There are still some sections that are being worked on, but the sections that they have chosen to write about are relevant.

The article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps considering it was chosen for this course.

In terms of the content that are currently on the page:

''- The pathogenicity and virulence section is very detailed but written in a way that is well understood. I like the subheadings as it really helped divide up the content and make it clear what was being written about.''

''- The zoonosis section was very concise. Interesting point about veterinary dermatologists. Is the treatment for human MRSP infections not supposed to be used for animals because of MRSP vs MSSP?''

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
''The content added is neutral and there is no bias. It is objectively written.''

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
''There are good quality references (peer reviewed scientific literature) and the links do work. There are some very current articles (2020) and the majority of sources cited are within the last decade, which is current. The links work.''

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 content thus far is well organized with good use of sections and subheadings. The content is well written, very clear and concise. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors.''

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
''So far, there are no images added. I think having some images would enhance the topic, perhaps a photo of canine pyoderma!''

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Great work so far! Once the rest of the sections are added, the article will be very strong. The sections added so far are very well sourced and written.