User:Ebtapper/Electric bacteria/ISUWIKI Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ebtapper


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ebtapper/Electric_bacteria?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Electric bacteria

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It appears that the lead has been left the same as the original article.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence clearly describes the topic in a concise way.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the articles major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * In my opinion, the article is concise. I would maybe leave some of the metabolism topics for the metabolism section though.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * From the references, I could see that the added information is from 2002 and 2009. It is slightly old information, but that does not necessarily mean its irrelevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I know of. I am unfamiliar with this species so I review their article form a naïve, unbiased background.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think this applies to an article of this topic.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over or underrepresented?
 * The section on metabolism seems to be slightly overrepresented. I suspect that this is because some of the other sections appear to be incomplete. I think once they are complete, the article will be more balanced.
 * Does the content try to persuade the reader into thinking in a certain way?
 * No

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but it might be beneficial to add more references to solidify understanding.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Slightly. As previously mentioned, they are from 2002 and 2009. This doesn't mean they're irrelevant sources though.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by scientists who have experience in microbial research and knowledge of the species in question.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * The author used sources from peer-reviewed literature. I think that is the absolute best form of a reference.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They work.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written (concise, clear, and easy to read)?
 * Organization is very well done. It is clear, concise, and easy to read for any reader.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized?
 * Yes, I think the added content brings in even more organization than the original. The heading are appropriate and relevant to the topic.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. The image with the scientific classification table.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, but it should be cited by the source.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think the image needs to have a citation in the caption to show credit.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes the table is huge attention grabber. I would suggest placing it by the lead as a lot of reader will look to that for quick information and visual representations.