User:Colettemort/Aerotaxis/Brysonbaggs Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Colette mort


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colettemort/Aerotaxis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:


 * 1) There is a lead section present, and it has been updated by my peers
 * 2) The lead does contain a short, descriptive introductory sentence
 * 3) The article so far does not contain any subsections, and the lead does not discuss what potential subsections that they wish to discuss in their article.
 * 4) It is hard to say if what they have written is the lead or if they are trying to make a specific subsection.  The article itself is not constructed in a way to tell the difference between subsections and the lead.
 * 5) The lead is not too short, but it also isn’t overly detailed

Content:


 * 1) The content contained in the material present is relevant to the topic.
 * 2) The oldest article is from 1999, I would say this is still relevant information, the other articles are from more recent years.
 * 3) I would definitely improve the division of the article, start by making subsections that are relevant to your topic, building upon what you already have.
 * 4) Microbiology is an ever evolving field of study, so this topic will enhance the representation of microbiology on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance:


 * 1) The content that has been added up to this point is neutral and is not one sided.
 * 2) It does not appear to have any claims that are heavily biased at this time.
 * 3) The viewpoints here are not over represented nor underrepresented at this time.
 * 4) There are no attempts to persuade noted in this article.

Sources and References:


 * 1) The sources that have been used up to this point seem to be reliable, quality references that are up to date with current events.
 * 2) The links to the article work.

Organization:


 * 1) The content is a little choppy and needs some work to flow better.
 * 2) Consistency in capitalization of the words, such as “Oxygen”,is not the same in all sentences, and could be changed to either lowercase or capitalized to improve flow and appearance.

Images and Media:


 * 1) There are not images or media present in this article

New articles:


 * 1) The article contains the minimum number of required sources.
 * 2) This list of sources could be improved in number to provide more information about the topic.
 * 3) There is not a solid layout to the article at this time, and is not very comparable to similar articles.
 * 4) This article is only links to research papers and articles in their reference sections and is not linked to from other articles.

Overall impressions:

There could definitely be more content added to make this article better. This article is in the very beginning stages but needs to have a better structure to make reading and finding information easier. The information that has been shared up to this point is goo information but needs further details.