User:HarappanBoyz/Anaerobic organism/NBezzina Peer Review

All of the information included in the article so far is relevant and concise. It discusses the topic matter in depth while maintaining focused. The citations could be improved by directly citing information or being more specific. Citations or embedded definitions could help to define uncommon words to help this be more digestible to an audience unfamiliar with science. There does not seem to be any sort of bias or preferential slant that would invalidate any information. The article is well done and a strong starting point for explaining anaerobic symbioses.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)