User:Braydencrismon/Social motility/Ahiggs1013 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) Braydencrismon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Braydencrismon/Social motility

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no current article on the topic, but I think their information is quick and to the point about explaining what social motility is.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The first sentence quickly defines and identifies what the rest of the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes because there is no current article that they are adding onto.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I feel like the lead can be extended upon and a bit more organized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, but there isn't much content in their draft. It mentions two bacteria, but does not go into further detail about them.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, their content is from 2010 and newer.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? They have Wikipedia as one of their sources which isn't allowed. They mention two bacteria but they are not mentioned again in the article. They also have headers for the other types of motility, but there is no mention of the other forms of motility in the lead.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. The content that they do have is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no claims that lean towards one position or another.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no viewpoints that are over or under expressed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is no content that is used to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part. They did reference Wikipedia as one of their sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The topics that aren't from Wikipedia are on topic and relevant.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. Most of the sources are under 10 years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content feels like it was rushed while being written.The sentences are a bit simple and sometimes run on sentences.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is a sentence in the beginning that has a random word capitalized. The rest of the article seems to be good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There isn't much information as of yet. Once more information is added, it should be organized as they have headers for a few of the topics.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no images on the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? There is no images on the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There is no images on the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is no images on the article.

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are good, but none of the information is currently 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? Yes it will once more information is added to the article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? They did credit Wikipedia as a source, but there is not a link to the article mentioned.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Not at the moment. I think after they work on it a bit more, they should have a complete article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that they are heading in a good direction, but I feel like information was mentioned, but then not included into the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Two bacteria were mentioned. Please add a paragraph in the article about how social motility relates to these organisms.