User:Gpommier/Salisediminibacterium halotolerans/FlashGordon232 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)
 * Gpommier and their work on Salisediminibacterium halotolerans
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gpommier/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead only had on sentence in its introductory with 4 references before.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does have a contents section that breaks down the separate sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it discusses the history of its initial discovery among other general history and it includes Characteristics, Composition, and Reference sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise with a good amount of detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be a little more information added but it is well written.
 * 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?
 * No
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, from 2012 to 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * From the sources listed, there is a good diversity amongst authors
 * 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?
 * Yes, the content is well-written and it provides a concise but relatively detailed description that is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is broken down into succinct sections to provide better organization

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?
 * Not available
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not available
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not available

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?
 * 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?
 * Yes, the content added has significantly improved the quality of reading for this article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is very concise, but provides much more detail to ensure a good overall background.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding more information on the topic without repeating any unnecessary information