User:AguaPika/Thermotoga petrophila/Kmvsetecka Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * AguaPika


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AguaPika/Thermotoga_petrophila?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Thermotoga petrophila

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
-This article does not have a designated "lead" section. I think that maybe the lead section is under the "Thermotoga petrophila" section. There is new content in this section that is not in the original article.

-The first two sentences in this section describe the microbe and where the microbe can be found. Overall the section does not contribute other information or let me know what will be discussed in later sections.

-I do not think that the lead provides an overview of the topics that will follow. Possibly the article will focus mostly on the metabolic processes of the microbe and where it's found.

- The information in the lead section is not repeated later on in the article. I think that there could be more details in the lead to let the reader know what to expect later on and what the article will be about.

Content
-The content that is available is relevent to the topic. Though I had wondered about in the lead section, there was a part that briefly mentioned that the microbe is of interest in biotechnology. I wonder why and if the topic could go into further detail, I did not know what to think about this sentence. The heading "description" I think could be a bit more specific, it seems a bit vague.

-I am not sure what is considered up-to-date in the realm of science. The articles are roughly a decade old. I think that this may be okay, I am not sure if there are other more current sources on the topic, I would suggest also incorporating those if available.

-I think that more content could be added to the sections and to the lead. I think the sections that are listed are okay, but do not contain content or enough content.

-This article does not address minorities or underrepresented communities. This could be tied in through the economy, which you mentioned biotechnology opportunities or if the microbe affects anybody directly or indirectly.

Tone & Balance
- I think the overall tone is neutral, there is one part in the lead where the phrase "great interest," which I think could be conveyed with more neutrality.

-The part that talks about the biotechnology could be written about a littl bit more neutral.

-There are many points that are underrepresented, I am not sure if there are not many sources about the topic or if there is little information to go off form. I think elaborating on the sections that you have chosen would be good.

-I think that overall the content was unbiased.

Sources & References
-You did a good job of backing up your content with the source and citation

-I think there could have been more content added from the sources

-The sources provide good information, but I think it would be beneficial to have another source or two added to help form this article.

-The sources are current enough, but I think there would be benefit in updated sources or on a microbe that has better coverage

- All of the sources links work great

-I have found additional sources that could be of use to forming this article on google. I think there needs to be a little digging for different sources or additonal ones, or just overall more content added.

-There could be a greater diversity of authors when writing this article

Organization
-There content overall is easy to read and I think the public would find it easy to read as well. I do not think the lead is overal concise and I think that it could use some elaboration and more content.

-I did not see any spelling or gramatical errors.

- The major points could have been tied into the lead a bit more, but overall organization is not bad

Overall Impressions
-I think the content has added to the article, while the original had one sentence. The one sentence did talk about some major characteristics of the microbe I think that you could touch on.

- The strenghts of the content added was the additional information for the reader

-I think for the content to be improved would include more content added that will help support your ideas.