User:Ahiggs1013/Lactic Acid Cycle/RavynCasey Peer Review

General info

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

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead doesn't appear to have been updated to reflect the new content, but the information added wouldn't really need to be referenced in the lead because it's more specific information than would be typical for the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead has a good introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead outlines general information about the topic but it doesn't outline the structure of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information in the lead is expanded upon or explored in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and general, which is good for the introductory paragraph of the article.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content that was added seems to be up-to-date, but could use some more reliable (recent) sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The paragraph describing the major bacterial strains able to ferment lactose needs re-working, but this is noted by the author at the bottom of the paragraph.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, same as above.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the balance of viewpoints is good.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content presents factual information.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources added are good sources for citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are relevant to the topic and seem to be in line with other studies available.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources used could be updated to find more recent studies, but that's not to say they are terribly out of date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links to source materials work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is clear and easy to understand, but could be a bit more detailed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the section added is well organized.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I believe the content added would be a welcome addition to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The clarity and conciseness of the language used to describe the topic is very well done and everything added is good information that expands the article in a positive way.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Updating some of the sources used would be great, but also adding a diagram or a picture could also be helpful if it supported the information added to the article.