User:Ckosiak/Sporosarcina pasteurii/Prokarylotic Lover 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

 * Ckosiak
 * Sporosarcina pasteurii

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?
 * Very well written but a bit long for one sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Everything is explained further in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A very well written lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Might be overly biased towards the use of this specific bacteria. It is a very useful bacteria but does it also have any downsides? If the pH of the environment increases does this influence the natural ecosystem in a negative way?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Just a very positive view.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I wouldn't say there is a stated position as the information is simply stated.

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?
 * Very good sources, and an impressive amount of new content added.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, brought up to within the last couple years. I think that the original article information could be scrapped as it is lower quality and sources are from 2010 or older.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They work, i'm not sure if the science direct links will work for other people, they work for me because MSOE pays for Elsevier. I didn't check to see if the articles were open source/open access or whichever designation is for the articles on the database that are available for non-subscribers.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * A good variety of sentence structure. I know with this type of article it is hard to write shorter sentences especially when trying to summarize a source as a summary sentence tends to be larger. So if it's possible to shorten or simplify some sentences that could be helpful. There was one part about describing how the bacteria increase pH and you were referencing molar balances might have been a little too detailed for wikipedia. To me it make a lot of sense and I can easily make the connection with our major's chemistry background. However, I think the point was already driven across that the bacteria metabolizes food and produces chemicals that increase the pH of the environment.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I couldn't find any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is well-organized. I mentioned earlier about taking out the original information in the article or rephrasing it to be better and more up to date will make that last section on potential applications better. Also, if some of these applications are being done then it would no longer be potential applications but realized applications.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * You made major improvements to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content is detailed, up to date, well rounded, and well written.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think I left some things to be improved in my answers to previous questions.