User:Anonymous microbe/Bacillus cereus/Egross123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anonymous microbe, Danimahoney, Is73500, Jmoyang58


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Bacillus cereus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bacillus cereus

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:

- Good use of links embedded into the text to help readers understand the functions and characteristics of the bacterium.

- Proper citations/links embedded into the lead sentences helping readers to see where information is coming from.

- Many big words are used in the intro, maybe describing a little better what each term means to tie the content together would help readers understand what is being described.

Content:

- Much content about the human health complications of Bacillus cereus overgrowth, but not as much about the bacteria itself comparatively so adding more information about the bacterias characteristics would help to keep the article focused to the bacteria and not the illness.

- The table of characteristics/traits is somewhat hard to understand but could be great to help readers easily identify the bacterias characteristics!

- Describing the characteristics in the table might be an easy way to lengthen the article and make the content more in-depth.

- Great content headings are there, just elaborating would help the article to fully characterize this bacteria.

Tone/Balance:

- I felt the content was balanced/neutral and that there was no argument trying to be made. I felt the article had clear, concise information with no opinion attached.

Sources/References:

- I noticed that almost all data had a source attached, which is great.

- The reference list seemed lengthy and complete, so just adding the sources you bring into the article would be easy enough.

Organization:

- The article had a lengthy content list indicating there was a lot of content, which is good.

- The article seemed organized however I did notice the pathogenesis and human health implications came before the bacterias characteristics so maybe moving that to the bottom would help the article pertain mainly to the bacterium and not a disease.

Images/Media:

- I only noticed two images, so maybe adding more would make the article more engaging.