User:Countryscientist/Leuconostoc mesenteroides/Bzidek20 Peer Review

Leuconostoc mesenteroides Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
I am reviewing the work of Countryscientist. Below is the link to the article. I could not see any activity in the sandbox so I believe this is the correct draft.

Leuconostoc mesenteroides

Lead
The lead's introductory sentence does well to describe the bacteria's conditions and potential uses succinctly to give readers a glimpse of what will be potentially discussed. It goes on further to describe other characteristics such as shape, size, preferred temperature and oxygen levels, and its classification as gram positive. While detailed, I believe the lead gives readers a well balanced idea of what the bacteria are without having to dig in deeper in a concise way. I do suggest adding a description of the article's major sections just to make it more clear of the article's additional contents.

Content
All of the content within the article is relevant to the topic and up-to-date, with a lot of references from 2019. The subheadings do well to describe the content and add a nice flow to the article. While I believe all the content currently present is a great start to the article, some additional information that could be added can include an elaboration on the health risks: how it infects a host, the symptoms it causes, etc. Another section that could be added is information regarding its history/discovery and evolution if any. I was also curious to know the main differences in subspecies, so maybe adding links here would be helpful.

Tone and Balance
The content added is all neutral with no claims or biases. One viewpoint that may want to be made into its own section is the bacteria's use in fermented foods, as that may be a source of traffic for the article for people who want to try to make fermented foods at home. All viewpoints are balanced and do not make any attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
All content is provided with secondary sources of information. Most of them come from three or four main sources, so a suggestion would be to incorporate a few more to reflect recent literature if any. Some of these sources are older but provide information that is still relevant, while others are within the last year, which is a good addition to the article. This article does well to call on other Wikipedia articles for technical terms or processes that may not be known by all readers. All the links provided worked.

Organization
All sections are very concise and clear, making it a quick and easy read. As mentioned above, all technical terms were linked to other articles, giving the reader the opportunity to learn more while reading. There were no grammatical errors noticed. The sections do well to break down specific characteristics of the bacteria.

Images and Media
There are no images or media in this article. One suggestion would be to add a few regarding its various shapes and morphologies it can possess--this can be placed right next to the lead section.

For New Articles Only
Not applicable.

Overall impressions
While I am unsure of the state of the original article, the content present here does well to give the reader a complete idea of what this bacteria is, where and how it grows, its characteristics, and what it is used for. One strength of this article is its balance of succinct and detailed information--it does not go on longer than it needs to. With this said and as mentioned above, some improvements that can be made include adding a picture or two, a section describing its fermentation capabilities more, and an elaboration of its health risks.