User:Haw11967/Corynebacterium diphtheriae/Seabuntin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the work of Haw11967, Ash0315, Antonellaaliste, and 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.)

The lead contains an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, but it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections yet. The discovery of the bacterium by Edwin Klebs and Friedrich Loffler could be expanded on in the History section. Overall, the lead is extremely concise, but more detail could be added by including overviews of the major sections. Additionally, this sentence from the Pathogen and Disease section: "C. diphtheriae is a rod-shaped, Gram-positive, nonspore-forming, and nonmotile bacterium" may be useful to include in the lead so users can quickly determine the basic characteristics of the bacterium by reading the lead.

Several sentences in the Classification section such as those discussing the toxigenicity and the effect of iron concentration on toxin production do not seem very relevant to the classification of the species and its subspecies. These may be more relevant if relocated to another section such as Pathogen and Disease. Another suggestion could be to split up the section of Pathogen and Disease into one that focuses more on the toxicity/pathogenicity of the bacterium and another on the resulting disease caused in humans.

The content added is neutral and there does not appear to be any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position or any attempts to persuade the reader. The article is balanced overall.

There are several sentences that need a source citation for support. There is a full paragraph in the Classification section with none of the content cited. Most of the sources appear to be relatively recent, but some of them were from the 1950s, so it might be a good idea to see if there is more recent research that could affirm the statement supported by those sources.

The content added is well-written and easy to read, with minimal grammatical or spelling errors. The content is broken down into sections that reflect the major aspects of the bacterium, but additional sections could be added that describe the characteristics of the microbe itself, in which its shape and structure, metabolism, common environments, etc could be discussed.

The images are well-captioned and enhance understanding of the topic.