User:Anonymous microbe/Bacillus cereus/REL9040 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anonymous microbe


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Bacillus cereus - Wikipedia

There was no current draft so I will be reviewing original article


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bacillus cereus - Wikipedia

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.)

Suggested corrections
The lead mentions that the microbe is a facultative anaerobe twice.

Endospores were talked about in section "Pathology" and then was given its own section "Spore Elimination." I would either added the few sentences from "Spore Elimination" to "Pathology" where spores were mentioned (no need for its own section since it's only a few sentences) or I would move "Spore Elimination" underneath "Pathology" and rename it to "Prevention."

"Prognosis" belongs in "Pathology" or at least underneath that section. In general, all of the human disease related sections should be grouped together.

Rename section "Bacteriophage" because the section header makes it sound like you are suggesting that the microbe is a bacteriophage

Lead
The leading sentence throws too many scientific words at the reader all at once. Try incorporating those words into more substantive sentences that give contexts to those adjectives.

Lead had some repetitive sentences

Content
There was a substantial amount of content for some sections while others were left extremely bare. Try merging the shorter sections into the bigger sections or try to develop the smaller sections more.

Tone and Balance
The tone remained neutral, and wording was unbiased throughout the entire article.

Sources and References
Almost every sentence had an appropriate citation, and a significant number of references were used to support the article. References came from scholarly sources.

Organization
Definitely needs some reorganizing so the article can flow better.

Suggested moving around some sections and/or combining sections that were too small to be alone.

Images and Media
Very few images unless the reader happens to hover over the correct word. Only a few were included in the article.

There were a substantial number of hyperlinks to related articles which was good.