User:Shelby.slk600/Staphylococcus pseudintermedius/Clarissa.jimenez 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: Staphylococcus pseudintermedius

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I am not sure how to find the article before it was edited by my classmates.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead is clear about what the article is aiming to discuss about S. pseudointermedius.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but it could include a little more detail about the pathology.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? It seems that about 75% of the references are younger than 5 years old, therefore most of the content should be up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I think the article is complete.
• 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 don't sense any bias in the article.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. All sections are well balanced and relevant.
• 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? Many of the statements are cited with more than one reference. However, sometimes the second source of information is a fairly new content as well.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? About 75% of the references are younger than 5 years old, therefore most of the sources are current with a quarter of them older than 5 years old.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, most of the sources are written by multiple authors. I am no sure if any authors are historically marginalized.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. All the links I clicked worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The sentences flow very nicely making it easy to read and comprehend.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, I found a few grammatical errors and some errors in punctuation, specifically in the "Diagnosis" and "Epidemiology" section.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I think a section dedicated solely to resistance would be nice though.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

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? Yes, there are 39 total sources.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I am not sure how to answer this question, as there can be hundreds of articles containing partial or complete information about any one microbe. Determining if the list of sources is exhaustive is out of my reach.
• 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? Yes, however the epidemiology section contains a larger amount of subheadings than usual.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are many links available to click throughout the article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I am not sure how to look at the article before it was edited by my classmates. However, the current article is complete and concise.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content includes relevant information and is not too overloaded with detail. I liked how methicillin resistance was elaborated upon as this is a growing concern in medicine.
• How can the content added be improved? A punctuation and grammar check would benefit this article. Also a section dedicated solely to resistance would be helpful because this information is scattered throughout the sections of the article.