User:Chrisp01/Desulfovibrio/JHer359 Peer Review

General info
Chrisp01
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Chrisp01/Desulfovibrio
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Desulfovibrio

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: It is not clear whether the "General" section in the draft is intended to be its own section (after the lead section) or an addition to the lead section, but if not the lead section should be updated to reflect the added content and summarize the article as a whole. The General section provides a good general overview when taken in conjunction with the lead section (either as part of it or as follow-up), but it could provide some additional details about the ensuing content (habitat preferences, metabolism, and ecology, as well as its potential role in bioremediation and human disease).

Content: Draft content on habitat, metabolism, and ecology is good, but almost completely lacks citations and direct connections to existing literature. Additionally, the sections of the lead statement on human health and bioremediation of radioactive waste are not addressed clearly in the draft content (although an isolated quotation paragraph appears to be related to the human health aspect). Integrating the content with frequent citations from reliable sources and providing additional sections/paragraphs to discuss the effects of Desulfovibrio on human health and its uses for radioactive-contaminated water remediation should be added (unless these parts of the lead section are removed).

Tone and Balance: Generally, evaluative and absolute terms like "fascinating", "unique", "renowned" etc. could be interpreted as lacking balanced tone, and perhaps should be replaced with other words (unless specific references can be found for metabolic uniqueness etc.) Overall, the article draft tends to display a fairly even and neutral tone, but the lack of in-text citations renders this hard to judge (it is difficult or impossible to tell if the sources themselves are biased or not, especially when only a few sources are in references).

Sources and References: The lack of in-text citations (aside from the quotation paragraph) renders it difficult to tie sources to statements, and this renders reliability evaluation difficult or impossible. The four fully cited sources in the reference section are apparently from reliable sources but are not cited in the text, and only the quoted paragraph is cited (given the dislike of Wikipedians for direct quotes, this should perhaps be summarized in a brief paraphrase rather than incorporated as a quote). The links are also from apparently reliable sources, but should be incorporated into properly formatted references. All references are recent and up-to-date, and seem to cover a range of topics (though bioremediation does not seem to be mentioned).

Organization: The draft is well-written on the whole and well-organized, and while the tone and wording of the writing may need to be evaluated to avoid tone biases it is generally very accessible. Some run-on sentences and clauses could be broken up as well. The number/bullet points are helpful to summarize important ideas.

Images and Media: No media or images were added, and since the original article already contains an image and a taxonomic tree no additional media is likely necessary (though some environmental images of Desulfovibrio or schematics of its bioremediation/health/ecological activity could be interesting).

Overall Impressions: Overall, the draft would represent a considerable improvement over the existing article, filling out a large amount of content and detail absent in the original. Its accessible writing style, effective organization, and varied sources provide a lot of strength to the draft. However, it seems that only portions of it are drafted or finished here, and that some sections are absent almost entirely. To improve the draft, I here briefly summarize my suggestions from the evaluation above:

- integrate the General and Lead sections and update the Lead section to better reflect the new article's structure and content (the new sections on habitat, metabolism, and ecology in particular)

- Add in-text citations frequently in the main article text and Lead section, and add sections covering human health and bioremediation topics in more depth (as outlined in the current Lead section)

- remove or modify evaluative or absolute terms to ensure neutral tone, unless the use of the term for a particular context can be supported with a citation

- update the references section and in-text citations for proper formatting, and use additional recent references as appropriate to enhance article thoroughness (e.g., on role of Desulfovibrio in enhancing corrosion of metals, metabolic flexibility, role in human diseases, ecological interactions with methanogens, etc.) - see below for some examples from Google Scholar

''Woodard, T. L., Ueki, T., & Lovley, D. R. (2023). H2 is a Major Intermediate in Desulfovibrio vulgaris Corrosion of Iron. Mbio, 14(2), e00076-23.''

''Dong, X., Zhai, X., Zhang, Y., Yang, J., Guan, F., Duan, J., ... & Hou, B. (2022). Steel rust layers immersed in the South China Sea with a highly corrosive Desulfovibrio strain. npj Materials Degradation, 6(1), 91.''

''Zheng, S., Li, M., Liu, Y., & Liu, F. (2021). Desulfovibrio feeding Methanobacterium with electrons in conductive methanogenic aggregates from coastal zones. Water Research, 202, 117490.''

''Ueki, T., Woodard, T. L., & Lovley, D. R. (2022). Genetic manipulation of Desulfovibrio ferrophilus and evaluation of Fe (III) oxide reduction mechanisms. Microbiology Spectrum, 10(6), e03922-22.''