User:Haw11967/Corynebacterium diphtheriae/Zec57612 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Haw11967


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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 of this article is general definition of the bacteria. It also mentions an alternate name it is known by. It does not introduce or summarize any of the sections following the lead. The lead needs to be more of an introduction rather than a definition.

The new content added by this user consists of new sources and citations. The added sources seem to be on-topic and neutral. The first source is a reliable, peer reviewed scholarly journal from 2000. The second source added could provide epidemiological information to the article, which is important considering the history of Diphtheria. It is from 2019, and seems to be an unbiased, reliable source. The final source added provides information on how cases are treated. This is a reliable and unbiased source from 2011.

There are definitely content gaps in the article. I think that the sections already there are good, but can be expanded upon. The article does not deal with a wikipedia equity gap.

The content added is neutral and there are no biased claims.

The article is a bit difficult to read and understand. There is a lot of scientific jargon.