User:Eduesdieker21/Arsenophonus arthropodicus/JKaner04 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Eduesdieker21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Arsenophonus arthropodicus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There is a nice lead paragraph
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, they has a nice paragraph detailing Arsenophonus arthropodicus.
 * 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?
 * I think it's all in there
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Nope, nice paragraph

Lead evaluation
I think it's a great start. You could probably add some more info as you continue to research a little more but overall great job.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is on topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The referenced article is from 2006 so maybe not.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nope, good job

Content evaluation
I think the content is good, maybe look for an article published recently.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Content was neutral, no outrageous claims that looked biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The source is backed up
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Source is from 2006
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The link worked

Sources and references evaluation
You have a good source where you got your info. I'd try to look for a recent article for more info and maybe updated info.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I would say it's all those things
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I would probably split isolation and genome identification into two sections

Organization evaluation
Great start, think about splitting isolation and genome identification into two sections.

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

No images


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
None

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?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * One nice source, could be more.
 * 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?
 * Yes.

New Article Evaluation
Had a handful of more articles cited so it's more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think it's a great start with some really good information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You have a few nice paragraphs that detail genome ID and isolation, nice lead paragraph as well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Just continue research for more articles. If you find more info to add then you will have a really strong article.

Overall evaluation
Overall great draft, just look for more info and you'll have a great article.