User:Epicfroggz/Pyrococcus furiosus/Antonellaaliste Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Users: Epicfroggz, Aetilghman, Miyamoto4, Trinityt516


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

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


 * The new information by my peers was added to the article.
 * The introductory sentence is a little short and could be lengthen a little more to add a clearer idea on what type of archaea it is.
 * A brief description on the major sections of the article is not included in the lead.
 * The lead overall could have some more information over the archaea.

Content


 * The new content added is good, neutral and relevant information. Good references were used as well.
 * The "Enzyme" section could use some more examples of other enzymes that are present in the archaea.
 * The "Discovery" section could also be more descriptive on the details about the discovery.
 * If possible, another section could be added to the article. I also would just suggest reviewing the sections that may just need more information to strengthen the article.

Tone and Balance


 * The added content does have a neutral tone, no biases were noticed.
 * From what has been added to the article, all of it is good in content, grammar and spelling.

References


 * All of the content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Some of the references are a little older but most of them are current.
 * I could be wrong, but I would check to see if your new information that was added has the right references attached to it.

Images and Media


 * A couple of more pictures could be added within the article.

Overall, I believe the article has a good strong start. All I would suggest for the article is to add some more information to the sections that lack it or even adding a relevant and interesting section to strengthen the article. From the new content that was added, the information is written in a neutral tone and is informative. I can't really click on the link to your references and I do not see them on the wiki article, however the content seems free from plagiarism.