User:Catcog/Desulfovibrio vulgaris/Thunderclaw2 Peer Review

General info
Catcog
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Yes, each section is at least mentioned in the lead, but the organization of information in the lead could be improved (see below).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the rest of the article does not discuss the status of Desulfovibrio vulgaris as an opportunistic pathogen. This is an interesting tidbit, and it would be helpful to expand upon it in an additional section.  As is, this sentence seems a bit out of place.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and understandable, but I would recommend re-ordering the information a little bit (see below).

Lead evaluation
''The lead is in good shape. However, I think you should move the sentence about 'withstanding high salinity' to the first paragraph in the lead. This information has no clear connection to it being a pathogen, so I would put the pathogen sentence on its own at the end of the lead (and expand upon that further in another section); then, I'd move the salt tolerance sentence to the end of the first lead paragraph with a little bit of tweaking.''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell, yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would suggest adding some more content about it being a potential pathogen. Furthermore, you could include some information about its genome (since you mentioned it was sequenced), such as size, number of genes, GC content, etc.  This isn't necessary, though.
 * I would also suggest expanding a bit upon its role in biogeochemical cycles, perhaps giving a brief statement about what their metabolism produces and how that may impact environments.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content present is useful and well explained, but expanding a bit more on what is currently there and adding information on additional topics would improve this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is more information regarding salt tolerance than the other two sections, so I would suggest at least adding more information to the "Sulfate Reducing Bacteria" section and talking about its metabolism in a bit more detail. This would help balance out the sections since, as it is now, the main information I got from the article was that it's pretty tolerant to salt stress and has a number of ways to combat salt stress.  The sections about bioremediation and sulfate reduction are equally important, but aren't explained as thoroughly as salt tolerance.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is great and very professional, but adding information to the current sections (and adding an additional section as mentioned earlier) would help balance the weight of each section.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article 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?
 * I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing there are more than 5 articles talking about this microbe. It would be good to add a few more sources so the article isn't so biased toward a few sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most are a bit old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yep

Sources and references evaluation
Your information is all properly cited, but I would try to find more articles to cite so that most of your information isn't being pulled from just a few sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope, looks good on this front
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yep, but again as stated earlier I would add another section about it being a pathogen (including examples of such)

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article looks good.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The draft article does not, but the published article has an image of the bacterium, so I think that's sufficient.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
If you keep the image that is currently in the published version of the article, you should be good to go.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is well-done so far, but a few alterations and additions would improve it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The writing tone is very professional and information is laid out in a well-organized and concise way. The information included is useful and relevant to the organism.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * See my previous comments - Changing up the lead a bit, adding more information to the SRB section, potentially adding another section regarding this organism as an opportunistic pathogen, and adding more references in general.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article seems well-developed so far, and could be even better with a few additions and improvements.