User:Braydencrismon/Social motility/Samanthabrailsford 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)  Nitsuawatts, Nicvantuna
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Maybe go into the types of social motility
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, uses organisms that are not explained later
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe so
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? You can definitely expand on your content and put more information in on the types of motility. Instead of putting a link to information summarize the information and put on the wiki page.

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 overrepresented, 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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes recent articles
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? Yes, I like how you broke the content up into the types of social motility although I fell like you are missing information.

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


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

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? No could have more
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Only has one link

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Seems like a new article so all the information is good.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think you can go into more detail.

Overall evaluation
Very good start although I still think you have some missing information and sources that could be added. Overall a good beginning though.