User:Gpommier/Salisediminibacterium halotolerans/Obri98 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? Gpommier
 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise, and it covers a lot of what is discussed further in the rest of the article. It clearly describes the topic and answers all the most immediate questions a person may have when reading an article about a species of bacteria. I think the fragment "which was isolated from..." would be better as its own sentence. Since the first sentence already holds a lot of information, it would be clearer if this last part was separated out.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The info is relevant to the topic, up to date, and thorough. I don't know what a soda lake is, so if there's a wikipedia article about the "Xiarinaoer soda lake" I think it would be a helpful link to add. The sentence that says "two novel strains that were already discovered" seems a bit contradictory. I know what you mean, but it would be clearer if this part were revised, possibly by removing the word 'novel'.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
There is no apparent bias and the information is balanced.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used are credible.

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?

Organization evaluation
The information has been divided into different sections well. The sections are in an appropriate order, and there were no glaring grammatical or spelling errors.

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


 * 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
There are no images, but this isn't a problem.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is thorough and well-written. You gathered a lot of good information from the few sources you had available to you.