User:Seaoli12oceans12/Brucella canis/Anonymous microbe Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Seaoli12oceans12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seaoli12oceans12/Brucella_canis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Brucella canis

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead section has been updated, but more still needs to be added to account for all the sections that will be discussed. The language is concise and clear, and the information is explained further in the text. Most of the sources are recent, within the last ten years, and all information is relevant to the topic. However, the information added would be more impactful if it was explained further; most is just one sentence from the source without context. There is still much more content to be added to the sections as well as sections to be added. They did a good job of adding content that is neutral and objective. The sources are all reliable peer-reviewed journals or review articles, but there is much more information in the sources than is being utilized; the group should go back through to add more content that they are missing. The added content is well-written, but there are gaps in the sections as well as entire potential sections missing. For example, in the infection section, the article discusses the disease and symptoms, but not the actual mechanism of infection of the pathogen itself; the treatment section discusses what can be done to eliminate infection, but not the relevant mechanisms to the bacterium itself. I would also suggest adding a genetic/reproduction section and some type of interaction section (to discuss its relationships in the environment with other organisms). The organization for the existing content looks good. Some images and/or graphics could be added- maybe a picture of a culture on an agar plate, and generally, as the group adds more content, they should think about relevant graphics they can add to aid in the understanding of the article. Overall, the article is more complete than it was, as it was very bare to begin with, but it is still lacking a lot of important information.