User:ShelbyGodby/Acinetobacter baylyi/Ctuck24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * ShelbyGodby


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ShelbyGodby/Acinetobacter baylyi:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Acinetobacter baylyi

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.)

Lead: The lead has been updated with new information, but is mostly exactly what is reflected in the actual article. The introductory sentence does clearly convey what the article is on. It briefly touches on the article's main sections, but it could include a sentence or two about genetic mechanisms. It might also be beneficial to include more overall pathophysiology in the lead. The lead does include a sentence about the organism being catalase positive, nitrate-negative, etc. but does not explain this later on in the article. However, the lead is concise and would be more concise by tying in the pathophysiology section.

Content: The content added is relative to the subject and seems to be up to date. It might be beneficial to explain how some of the metabolism works and how the substrates are transformed. All of the content added is beneficial and seems to belong.

Tone and Balance: The tone of the article is neutral and does not add any opinion. It is very objective. The content added does not seem to persuade or have an intent to persuade readers.

Sources: The sources appear to be well thought out. There is a good number of sources and they all seem to be very recent (in the past 20 years). Make sure all of your sentences/groups of sentences have a cited source. The last sentence on some of the sections does not have a cited source.

Organization: The article is well organized. Some of the paragraphs need more information rather than two or three sentences. It might be beneficial to also add some images.