User:Ah51352/Rickettsia rickettsii/Nathaniel Yankey Peer Review

General info
User: User:Ah51352/Rickettsia rickettsii
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Link: User:Ah51352/Rickettsia rickettsii
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Link to article: Rickettsia rickettsii

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The group did not follow the lead model when making edits to the document which made it slightly challenging to know the start of the edits in the sandbox. However, the group did an overall phenomenal jobs making necessary edits to the article in a detailed and concise method. When making edits for the lead section in the sandbox. I would make edits to the introduction and add a full description/summary of the cell based on its morphology i.e (chemo or organo, heterotroph or autotroph). I would also add a description about the respiratory methods for the microbe.

Content
The group did an amazing and detailed addition to the contents to the article and I really appreciate the fact that the edits had the same edits that the wikipedia article has. This made it a lot easier to follow along the edits made by the group. The information added to the article were up to date and the peer reviewed articles were all within the last couple of decades which was an addition that I appreciated and ensured the accuracy of the edit they made. I also appreciate the organized method utilized for the references.

Tone and Balance
The tone and balance for the edits made so far are perfect and are very professional. The additions came from a thoughtful approach and presented the facts without any known biases.

Note
For future updates, I believe the group should add images if possible as the original article lacked image.