User:Bguti02/Facultative anaerobic organism/Seashell5300 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? (provide username)
 * Bgutio2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Facultative anaerobic organism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by a fellow peer. Suggestions for a change in structure is provided in the talk page, but is yet to be adjusted.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Considering only the lead is provided in this article, I do not have enough evidence to conclude the work written accurately highlights what the article will discuss.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Again, there is not enough information to prove it discusses major sections of the article since it is not yet written.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it does include information not included in the the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise with a total of 3 sentences comprised of it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content so far is relevant to the topic being discussed.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is not up-to-date as the talk section discusses information that would be better added, but it is not included in the article itself.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, all of the content after the lead is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added so far seems fairly neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I am not noticing any claims that appear to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are viewpoints that are underrepresented as content is missing.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another as only facts seem to be stated.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source as the first sentence of this article is defining the topic with no source provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources do reflect the literature available on the topic, but could be utilized for more information from the writer.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are not current and range from the late 1900's to early 2000's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Four sources are provided, three from a book and the last from an article, proving to be small in diversity of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links for the books seem to take me to another Wikipedia article discussing the purpose of 'International Standard Book Numbers' while the article takes me directly to the writing.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Minimal grammatical and spelling errors are seen.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized for the most part but does lack appropriate sections moving forward from the introduction paragraph.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * One picture is included that provides various types of anaerobic and aerobic bacteria to help the reader visually understand their differences.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image was well captioned as it clearly stated what each tube represented.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe the image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, but I am having difficulty locating the source in which it was retrieved.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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?
 * The article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements as it is supported by 4 reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources is brief and small as more information from them could be provided in the article.
 * 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?
 * In the beginning this article follows the pattern of other articles, but more information is not provided for me to determine the remaining content patterns.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * It does link to other articles if readers would like to access more information on a certain topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is not more complete as there is many contents that appear to be missing. I think it requires more research and work before being labelled as complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength is the picture provided as it can help the reader decipher the difference in specific forms of facultative anaerobes.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be improved by accessing the talk page and using the suggestions made by other Wikipedia's who would like to make it better if given the chance.