User:Seaoli12oceans12/Brucella canis/Danimahoney Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Seaoli12oceans12, Walker16, Mfavro


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
I evaluated the existing article (Brucella canis), because the sandbox does not yet contain a draft.

Much of the language in the introductory paragraph of the article may be difficult for the general reader to understand, but many of the more complicated characteristics have hyperlinks. All of the information mentioned in the lead section is expanded upon later in the article.

The body of the article is structured well, beginning with descriptions of the organism itself, then moving on to explain mechanism and detection of the infection it causes. The Morphology section is not well-explained, and better descriptions of the mentioned characteristics would be helpful to the reader. There is also only one source cited in this section.

The Identification section could also use more references. It is clear that the section only draws from one source, as it mentions a very specific similarity between Brucella canis and another organism that is not later explained. An explanation of the importance of this similarity should be stated. The actual routes of identification can also be expanded upon, as they are mentioned only once in the last sentence.

The Treatment section potentially shows less of a neutral point of view, with phrases such as "...should be tested" rather than stating who/what in particular is recommending this.