User:Haw11967/Corynebacterium diphtheriae/Ebuntin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Haw11967, Ash0315, Antonellaaliste, Asherkhan5284


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haw11967/Corynebacterium_diphtheriae?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Corynebacterium diphtheriae

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.)

It doesn't look like the Sandbox draft is very developed yet, so I'll review the article as it is and give a few suggestions for editing it.

The lead is very concise, but it does not offer much summary and does not introduce the topic with enough detail. The introductory sentence should include information like whether the bacterium is gram-positive or negative, its motility, whether it is pathogenic, etc. As the article is now, this basic information is only revealed much later in the article under the Pathogen and Disease section.

Besides adding content to empty sections like the History section, it might be worth considering combining the Pathogen and Disease section with the Pathogenesis section and moving the first few sentences of the Pathogen and Disease section into a new section called Morphology or Characteristics. It looks like the last few sentences of the Pathogen and Disease section and the Pathogenesis section need to be cited. The Classification section could be split into subheadings for Taxonomy and Differential Staining. Also, the small paragraph about Elek's test for toxigenicity could be moved under a Pathogenicity section instead of the Classification section. Unless there is a lot of information for the Treatment/Prevention section, that could be turned into a subheading under Pathogenicity. A suggestion for additional sections is adding a Metabolism section.

Several of the references were published in the last five years, so it seems like the references are up to date, and the links seem to work. However, for this kind of article references should generally be scientific research papers and peer edited sources, so you might want to find a substitute for the references that are just links to CDC or Medline website pages. The tone of the article is very neutral. More images could be added, such as for the section discussing the types of stains performed to identify the bacterium.