User:Seaoli12oceans12/Brucella canis/Ebuntin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Seaoli12oceans12, Mfavro, Walker16


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


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

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.)

It looks like the sandbox draft is still in progress, so I'll focus on reviewing the article as it is and offer some suggestions for future editing!

The lead is concise and the introduction sentence contains basic characteristics of the bacterium without going into too much detail.

The content is relevant and is very well cited, with every small paragraph cited and multiple citations within the larger sections. The last sentence of the Infections section seems a little bit redundant, as abortion in females has been discussed several times already in the article.

The overall tone is neutral, but there is one sentence about antibiotic treatments that is cited from a source published in 2004 and discusses the relative cost that could be rewritten or expanded on with actual numbers. Consulting a more recent source on antibiotic treatments might help to rewrite that section so that it is more supported by evidence.

Several of the references were published within the last five years, so the references seem to be up to date. However, one of the references is a link to a pdf of a New Jersey Department of Health fact sheet, which might not be an appropriate, peer reviewed source.

Images could be added to depict some of the symptoms of the infection.

For the edited History section in the sandbox, make sure to cite your source for the additional information. Also, make sure to clarify what you mean by "contradict"--is B. canis not a biovar of B. suis after all? Overall though, this is a really interesting addition to the history section!