User:Cjbutler14526/Clostridium botulinum/Averihardwick02 Peer Review

General info
Cjbutler14526
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Cjbutler14526/Clostridium botulinum
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Clostridium botulinum

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.)

The lead is not present in the Sandbox, however, the original article's lead is well descriptive on microbe. The first sentence is very well oriented and detailed. I would like for it to go into more detail on how it is considered to be one of the most potent toxins. I believe that will be a great starter for your page. I also would like to read more about its transmission and treatment in the lead.

Though the microbiology section is still very new, I really enjoy the layout thus far. I appreciate your additional information in microbiology, such as making metabolism a subset. You can combine the serotypes and metabolism to make a condensed, cleaner look. I believe mentioning vaccine research in transmission and sporulation would be beneficial as well. You could include the pH and temperature here.

I really enjoyed the geographical locations section and believe it adequately describes the history and evolution of the bacteria. I am not sure why but the "use and detection" header is in a very awkward location and advise to move it towards the end behind diagnosis or treatment and vaccinations (if you plan to include that).

Because it is labeled one of the most potent toxins, I want to see more detail on the process mentioned in "use and detection." I also think shifting the first paragraph, talking about its benefits, to the last paragraph of the section would better outline the page.

I love the first 2 paragraphs of "growth conditions and prevention." I believe there shouldn't be any additional information added to this section, just obviously don't plagiarize.

I believe that links to images and graphs along with the description of each illness caused by this microbe (wound, infant, etc.) would be beneficial and to better describe the process of infection to each. Don't be as in depth as the "pathology" section on the original article, but include some symptoms. I also really like how you condensed the different kinds of this bacteria under the diagnosis section.

Don't forget a treatment and vaccines section.

Overall, I would like to have seen more images and graphs to the article. The content is up to date and relevant to the topic. It is neutral with the toxin process being slightly underrepresented. The content had clear intentions.

Good job!