User:FlashGordon232/Alicycliphilus/Gpommier 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?

FlashGordon232


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:FlashGordon232/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer

Yes- previously, the lead only had one sentence.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, states what the genus is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

There are not really any "sections" so the lead contains more information than that for now.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The article seems to be only the lead and etymology, so yes the lead elaborates more than the contents of the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is concise, but there is info I think that can be reserved for the main contents, such as sentences 3&4 of the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, all the new sources are from 2017 or newer.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is definitely probably more info to be added, but there is not content that doesn't belong.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

no

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?

There are no viewpoints in this article about a genus of bacteria


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, the references listed are scholarly sources


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes - it seems the main source for this article is one of the only papers published on the genus.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes - from 2017 and 2019


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There are few available sources for the article, but it seems the authors are diverse.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No


 * Are images well-captioned?

N/a


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/a


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/a

For New Articles Only - not new
''' 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?

The old article was pretty sparse, so yes.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

They added core details about the genus, which is important to people searching on Wiki.


 * How can the content added be improved?

More organization, needs more content, and some pictures if possible.