User:Nikith Naini/Lactobacillus acidophilus/Microbio15 Peer Review

General info
Nikith Naini, Npereboom, Acw66599
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikith%20Naini/Lactobacillus_acidophilus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lactobacillus acidophilus

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.)

No content has been added to the sandbox draft for this article, nor have the references been added to the "bibliography" section. The group may be writing their content on a word document before transferring it to wiki.

Since no content was added to the sandbox draft, I will consider the current version of the article for my review.

Lead section: This is a very detailed lead section. The introductory sentence includes a brief description of the bacteria, but not of the article as a whole. It is about 4-5 short paragraphs, which may be overly detailed. The content in the lead section can be summarized and then expanded upon in the remainder of the article.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic, it is somewhat up-to-date, morphology/physiology seems to be missing although media depicts the bacteria (lead section describes the bacteria as being Gram-positive- this can be expanded in a different later section of the article), I do not see content that deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps/addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations/topics.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral, no claims that seem to heavily bias a particular position, no attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References: Sources are thorough, somewhat current, and the links I clicked work.

Organization and writing quality: Article is concise and clear. I did not see any spelling errors. Well organized sections that reflect the major topic.

Images and Media: Article includes several images that enhance the topic. Some images are well captioned and detailed- describing the image such as being "an electron micrograph".

Talk page discussion: This article has been part of a WikiProject that occurred in the past (2019, 2022). Discussion going on include those such as the article does not discuss the bacteria. I agree with this statement.

Overall impressions:

This is a good article, the strengths include having a strong (detailed) lead section (that could be shortened) and images that are well captioned. In the talk session somebody mentioned adding more information about the bacteria itself. Current articles from this summer seem to be included and describe its impacts on immune system responses, but the recent articles do not seem to describe morphology/physiology.

Potential sources for morphology/physiology: discuses cell shapes

Senz, Martin et al. “Control of cell morphology of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus for enhanced cell stability during industrial processing.” International journal of food microbiology vol. 192 (2015): 34-42. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.09.015