User:Lumbarjax/Enterobacterial common antigen/MeaniePanini Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lumbarjax, Tracegaskill, 19-Ex-Nihilo-97, and Iroy00


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lumbarjax/Enterobacterial_common_antigen?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * - Does not appear to exist

Lead
The article has a good lead in sentence. The lead section doesn't seem to pertain to any of the sections. However, I think the description of the sections could be updated once the sections are actually completed. Once the article is fleshed out the lead section could stand to be updated and revised to reflect the rest of the article.

Content
All content appears to be relevant and up to date. There are some notes on sections that have no other information so those could stand to be updated or removed if no information is gathered.

Tone and Balance
All content appeared to be neutral, no biased claims. No persuasion within the article. Good job.

Sources and References
I don't think the references section is formatted correctly. For, I noticed that all the references were bullet points and based on the educational slides on completing a reference section I know it shouldn't look like that. Group should revise that training and format correctly. Also, I noticed the majority of the article appears to be notes on the subject and not fleshed out quite yet, but they should make sure to include references where applicable. I noticed that there was a lack of references within the article. I saw only a couple of footnotes, not as many as I assume there should be.

Organization
There is a lot of microbiology jargon, however, I think it is concise and flows well. Each section is a good idea, again each section still needs to be fleshed out.

New article
There appears to be plenty of good sources. I'm sure there is potential for more sources to be added once more information is added. Links could potentially be added as well.

Overall Impressions
The article is more complete. The strengths are in flow and the quantity of articles. Room for improvement lies within the references and fleshing out the sections.