User:HelenaHysong/Delftia tsuruhatensis/Hsaeedm 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? HelenaHysong
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:HelenaHysong/Delftia tsuruhatensis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Some of the sources provided are modern but others are a bit outdated. I think the modern sources do reflect the new content of Delftia tsuruhatensis.
 * 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? No, but the first couple sections of this person's article are brief. And the last section includes subheadings that summarize each paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? They do discuss the topic of "Quorum sensing mechanisms", which I did not see talked about from the sources that had links provided.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? They are concise in the Intro, Metabolism, and Morphology sections. The Biofilms section is detailed but I do not think it includes irrelevant information.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead does a good job organizing the information and including only what is important.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Not all of it. Some of the content comes from sources that are out of date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all of the information included is relevant to D. tsurugatensis.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the lead goes includes background information about biofilms and how Delftia can be involved in that. Since this article can be publicly accessed, the information will inform more people about the uses of Delftia.

Content evaluation
The the content is thorough and includes a lot of information about the application of their Delftia species.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the information given is not biased.
 * 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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very scientific and formal. The lead does a good job of stating the information in each section that is necessary.

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, all sources involve D. tsurugatensis.
 * Are the sources current? Some sources are out of date and go back to at most 1985.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources include authors from many different countries including Spain, Japan, Russia, and Turkey.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
All sources are relevant but some are a bit old. Also not all of the sources have links. If possible, I think the lead should include links for the other sources as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I read, I don't think the lead has any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The draft is organized well and even includes subheadings for the larger sections.

Organization evaluation
Organization is good. Nothing needs to be changed.

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? No pictures were included.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.

Images and media evaluation
Not applicable.

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? I think so. All of the sources that the lead included related to D. tsurugatensis.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Multiple sources are included. I think it is exhaustive. The lead goes into detail about the experiments that were conducted in each article while being concise.
 * 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? Yes. It includes headings and subheadings that organize the article well.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No. I think if there is one, they should include links to articles about biofilms or QS mechanims.

New Article Evaluation
The sources are well rounded and there are a good amount of them used in the article. Article links relating to QS mechanims or biofilms might be good to include.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content is very in-depth and is thorough about what D. tsurugatensis is and how it is used.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is able to be concise and maintain an appropriate tone.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some of the older sources may need to be checked to ensure the content information is still relevant. Also, some sources should have article links.

Overall evaluation
The article is well-written and includes a lot of useful information that will help inform more people about D. tsurugatensis. I think some sources should be looked at again but the lead did a good job writing this article!