User:Hrpollo/Bacterial transcription/Anconne 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)
 * User: Hrpollo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Bacterial transcription

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It looks like the user has not added any new content or if it has been added the lead does not reflect the table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not clearly, the sentence does not mention the three step process.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead has information that is present in article but it does not seem to be the important parts of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It includes improper details.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Half the information is at least 13 years old, while the other half is 19 years old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * A section that would discuss the difference between the bacterial and human transcription, if there is one.

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?
 * There are only 5 resources, having more would help to solidify ideas.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * This is difficult to determine because there are only five references.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Half are
 * 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
 * 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

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?
 * One is included. However, it is not clear how it helps with the explanation of the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I can tell.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The only image included makes sense where it was placed.

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?
 * No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * It is not as exhaustive as I thought it would be.
 * 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 contains a contents section, appropriate section headings, and references
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

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?