User:Anonymous microbe/Bacillus cereus/Nathalieslebreton Peer Review

At the time I peer reviewed the article (10/05), the sandbox draft only contained references, so I peer reviewed the article (Bacillus cereus) itself.

The first sentence of the lead is informative, but it includes a lot of scientific terminology that most lay people will not be familiar with. Fortunately, all of the terms have hyperlinks to their respective wikipedia pages so readers can familiarize themselves with the terms easily. Furthermore, I think the lead could provide a better description of the article's main sections and include less specific information. For example, the fact that "the bacteria is classically contracted from fried rice dishes..." is better suited for one of the content sections.

The content of the article is relevant to the topic, up-to-date, and belongs in the article. However, in the "Prognosis" section, the term "septicaemia" should be spelled "septicemia", and it should be replaced with the more current term "sepsis". Additionally, several sections such as "Reproduction", "Prognosis", and "In agriculture" could benefit from additional information. The content does not address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, but I think this choice is appropriate given the article.

The content of the article appears neutral, free of bias and not written to persuade readers one way or another.

The article references a wide range of (seemingly) reputable secondary sources published between 1993 and 2022. Of the 51 sources the article references, the majority are academic journals and textbooks. Therefore, the references seem current, reliable, and thorough, and I believe the authors used the best sources available. All of the links I checked worked.

With the exception of some specific scientific terminology, the content is well-written and easy to read. The content is organized into logical sections.

The article only contains two images. The images are well-captioned and enhance the quality of the article, but the article could benefit from more images. For example, an image depicting the "difficult-to-eradicate skin infections" that can result from B. cereus could give readers a better idea of the potential effects of B. cereus. Both images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and they are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall, the existing article is solid; however, the article has room for improvement in regard to additions that can be made to the article.