User:Cashi049/Trichodesmium/Jinoong31 Peer Review

General info
Cashi049, Linneajohnston
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Cashi049/Trichodesmium
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Trichodesmium

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?


 * The lead has not been updated, however I do not believe that there is a need to add brief descriptions about the new "Sociality" section as the original lead already discussed about Trichodesmium being able to form colonies or live individually, which ties into the added section already.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * The content added is relevant to the topic and provides new information regarding Trichodesmium ecology of colony formations.
 * The only comment I have is whether the first paragraph of the "Sociality" section (i.e. "Trichodesmium are able to transfer ... oxygen in the process of photosynthesis") should be moved up to the "Colonies" section. Because this part sound like factor determining colony formation in these bacteria.

Is the content added up-to-date?


 * Yes, as all references cited are of recent studies (within the past 10 years).

Tone and Balance
''Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?''


 * The new section added are factual statements written with a neutral tone. There are no signs of the editors being bias or attempting to persuade readers.

Sources and References
''Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)''


 * All facts added are accompanied by sources of reliable research.

''Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)''


 * Yes, I randomly checked half of the reference, and the added content reflect the statements of the original authors.

''Are the sources current? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?''


 * Yes, all the sources cited are recent research published within the past decade. As far as I can tell, the sources for the section added are thorough.

''Check a few links. Do they work?''


 * Yes.

Organization
''Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?''


 * The added content is well-written and there are no grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * There are no additional images added, however I think that it is not a major issue of not having visualizations or illustrations for the added content.

Overall impressions
Overall, I think the new additions were interesting and helps to build on the ecological aspects of Trichodesmium. As mentioned earlier, I would consider possibly moving the first paragraph of the section to the "Colonies" section. Regarding the first paragraph, I think it would help if you add some further explanation on sentences. For the sentence "The size of the colonies are also linked with the environmental oxygen content" I wondered how does oxygen content impact the size, there was no indication of whether the size increases with an increase in oxygen or is there a sweet spot for oxygen content. Another suggestion you could definitely do is to add links to other relevant for specific terms used, such as "holobiont" and "Richelia", to help readers access further reading materials.