User:Ahiggs1013/Lactic Acid Cycle/Eal13lanc Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ahiggs1013
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ahiggs1013/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It doesn’t appear that the lead has been updated, but their added information is pretty specific so it probably isn’t necessary.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead is a very good introduction for the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * This is one area that the lead could be improved upon. The lead doesn’t really highlight every major section in the article (ex history).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It doesn’t appear that way.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Although the lead could probably be fleshed out a bit more, it also seems fine the way it is.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The newest citation is from 2013. Most of the articles are from the 90s. I would like to see more info pulled from sources published in the last five years if possible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The lengthy paragraph about the culture surrounding milk seems a bit excessive and off topic, even though it is interesting.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the content presented appears to have come from adequate resources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Some are more thorough than others, but all seemed to have relevant  content in relation to the topic at hand.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The majority of them are not, 2 of the 3 were from 1982 or before, and one from 2010. Doesn’t make them bad sources, but new articles might have newer material available for the subject.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Clicked on all the links for the resources, and all worked well!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Parts make sense, but would suggest giving more background information on the actual process of fermentation.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, there is only one section presented.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It doesn't.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Yes there are 3, reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I’m sure there is more information available, but the resources used, support the part added.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * It has the proper headings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * It has links in the Cori Cycle that link to Lactic Acid Fermentation page.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Ahiggs1013 selected that he is updating/creating an article on the Lactic Acid Cycle, but his sandbox shows that he is doing Lactic Acid Fermentation. The Lactic Acid Cycle page if being done should probably just be merged with the Cori Cycle since it already has a pretty decent page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cori_cycle).
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think it does a really good job of talking about the different organisms that can ferment lactose. It also does a good job with talking about it’s importance in food production.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think it would be beneficial to have some diagrams if it is part of the Lactic Acid Fermentation page rather than the Lactic Acid Cycle/Cori Cycle page.