User:ShelbyGodby/Acinetobacter baylyi/Reesegroover Peer Review

General info
ShelbyGodby, Mgcorn5051, Atle5163, Michael55cm
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The Lead of this article exhibits some updates from the article that is currently published for reading on Wikipedia. These updates include grammar edits, inclusion of new information, and addition of new sources which are included in the bibliography. The first sentence of the Lead is well-written, as it introduces the topic well with a brief history to lead into the more scientific discussion of the bacteria. The lead incorporates some major characteristics of Acinetobacter baylyi that summarize its respiration, shape, membrane characteristics, movement (in this case that it is nonmotile), and nutrients it uses for metabolism. These terms address some of the sections that are addressed later on in the article well while remaining brief. In the subsection "Virulence Factors" from the section "Pathophysiology," some common diseases that present in patients that have been infected with this bacteria are listed; including these in the Lead would provide good background for readers going into the article, as this may provide some preliminary information that the readers are already familiar with. New information has been added to the Lead to address the new sections that the editors have added, as the original article is lacking many sections needed to fully describe Acinetobacter baylyi. Overall, the Lead section is brief while covering the correct amount of information.

Content:

The original Wikipedia article on this topic is limited to a Lead section, Metabolism section, and genetic mechanisms section in terms of content. Those editing this article have added new sections, including pathophysiology (virulence factors and survival), treatment, and applications. A significant amount of information has been added to this article, all of which is relevant to the bacteria and understanding how it survives and functions as a pathogen. The treatment and application sections are missing content. These sections seem to address the general points, however more detail could be included. Considering these sections were not present in the original article, they are off to a great start. All of the information added is up to date and accurate as well. Equity gaps do not appear to be addressed in the edits, however they can briefly be addressed well in the Lead section; also, they could be addressed in the treatment or virulence factors sections.

Tone and Balance:

The content included in the drafted article edits is very neutral, addressing information mainly based on scientific facts. No side is taken, and no bias is present. Currently, this article gets the points across while remaining balanced with an informational/educational goal.

Sources and References:

The original article not only had little information, but few sources. The sandbox exhibits many new edits as well as a wide variety of sources covering different backgrounds of information for this topic. All of the sources are all current, one of the sources being from within the last year. A diverse group of authors are present within this list of sources. Also, a lot of in-text citations are present, with a great amount of hyperlinks available for readers to understand important terminology. The genetic mechanisms section includes only one hyper-link, and there are various complex terms present in this section which should include hyper-links to make information more clear to readers. Some examples that could include hyper-links are natural transformation and vesiculation. When accessing the links in the bibliography, they work and take you to credible sources.

Organization:

The editors did a good job at organizing the information into different sections. They had to add sections as the original article is lacking a lot of information regarding the topic, however they selected good subtopics and arranged them in an order in which the information builds on each other.

Images and Media:

The original article has one image however, more could definitely be added. It would improve the article so that several of the sections have at least one image with caption.

Overall the edits made are great!