User:ZM9900/Coliform bacteria/Simrankmann Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(ZM9900)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZM9900/Coliform_bacteria?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Coliform bacteria
 * Coliform bacteria

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 paragraph for the article is strong as it clearly and concisely gives a description about the topic. My only suggestion would be that there are certain topics that are not talked about in the body of the article. For example, the sentence, "Coliform procedures are performed in aerobic or anaerobic conditions" is not mentioned in the article body. Maybe you can include one heading that briefly touches upon the procedures in different conditions. Other than that, the lead gives a good overview about the headings that are described later in the article.

Content

The content that was listed in the articles were relevant to the topic. However, I would suggest finding some incidences of E. coli outbreaks that are most recent, such as in the past 5 years or so. There are some areas of the article that could be improved. For example, there were various examples of coliform bacteria that were discussed in the article, however only E. coli was focused on. Therefore, it would be beneficial to discuss some of the other bacteria. The pathogenicity and habitats of the bacteria was also mentioned in the lead paragraph but was not discussed in the article body. Lastly, it would be good to discuss how beta-galactosidase is able to produce acids and to discuss the mechanism behind this.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is neutral and unbiased. One suggestion that I would give is to make sure that the sections are equal in length. For example, the sections that discuss PCR and In-Situ Hybridization are only one sentence in length which is a lot shorter than the other sections. Another suggestion would be that in the section that discusses an E. coli outbreak in Ontario, it states “recent studies”, however only one is cited. Therefore, I would suggest changing it to a phrase such as ‘in a study conducted by…’ to make it clear. Other than that, the article did a very well job to make sure that there are no viewpoints that are over- or underrepresented.

Sources and References

There was a good, range of sources from diverse authors. Not only that but all the sources are peer-reviewed and all the websites work. However, the two Wiley sources and the British Standard source are unable to be accessed. These sources were behind a pay wall and could not be accessed. The abstracts for these articles were not available, therefore it is difficult to check whether or not the content is accurately reflected from the cited sources. I would recommend to check if these article can be found on other websites for free and cite them from there.

Organization

The article is very well organized as all the information is split up into headings and subheadings. This made the article very easy to follow along with and read. I would also suggest to add headings to the original article to ensure that it flows better and is easy to follow along with. Other than that, the article is well written with no spelling or grammar errors.