User:Hrpollo/Bacterial transcription/Eackley42 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? (SamanthaSabatiniYCP)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SamanthaSabatiniYCP/sandbox?action=edit

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead is well done.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead is fully developed and all encompassing of information to be covered in later sections
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Concise and short. It's not bad that its short because it is scientifically written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content in sandbox. It is relevant to topic. Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The content is relevant with the three subsections of dat
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The content is up-to-date with relative resources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There could be content such as mutations, diagrams/pictures.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all views equally represented.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. No persuasion, all factual knowledge.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources are cited properly and are scientifically relevant
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A Few in sandbox, not yet published on article.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * None on actual webpage
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Organized well

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * One picture that is only a diagram
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, needs more information explaining information about the diagram
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?
 * The article is complete. You can always add more information though, if available.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is strong in that it fully defines the levels of bacterial transcription.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * If possible, try to add more pictures explaining each step of bacterial transcription.