User:Seaoli12oceans12/Brucella canis/Seabuntin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the work of Seaoli12oceans12, Mfavro, and Walker16


 * 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
(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.)

The lead section is concise and clearly introduces the article's topic, with a clear introductory sentence. The lead does a good job of including a brief description of each of the article's major sections, and it is not overly detailed. The content is relevant--furthermore, the content in each section is relevant to that section's topic. The content added appears to be neutral and nonpersuasive. Overall, the article is balanced, but there are some sections that are sparse in comparison to the infection and treatment sections. If there is not much more to be said about the host range, one suggestion would be to make the host range a sub-heading within the infection section. The content is very well-cited and backed up by reputable sources. The content is well-written and easy to understand. Another suggestion would be to move the History section as the first section to give a background on the bacterium's discovery first. There is a good draft for expansion of the History section in the sandbox, but remember to cite the added content once it is moved to the article. The image enhances understanding and is well-captioned.