User:ISUWIKI/Aquifex pyrophilus/Moss Enthusiast Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing the draft for the page on Aquifex pyrophilus, written by ISUWIKI, with a link to their draft here. The current version of the article can be found here.

Evaluation
I will start this evaluation by stating that many parts of your draft are very good, but I also have some major concerns with what you have written.

Lead

Your lead section is mostly fine, with the only things that should be changed being the "Introduction" heading being removed and the page title being set to the normal formatting, because right now it seems to be bolded. You will also want to move your taxobox to the top right corner of the page, since that is generally where they are.

Content

I think the information you added is in general pretty good, although you wrote about a different organism's genome and then said that "it is suspected" that your organism is similar.

Tone and Balance

Your article is written with appropriate tone and is not trying to persuade anyone of anything.

Sources and References

This is where most of my concerns lie. Most of what you have written does not have citations. In your "genome, phylogeny, and lineage" section, in the first paragraph you wrote about Aquifex aeolicus and didn't cite the source that talks about it there. Your lack of citations for a lot of statements is leading me to believe that your "it is suspected" sentences were just made up. Also, I can't find where in the A. aeolicus source it mentions that 16% of its genes came from archaea, or perhaps you had two sources about an organism that isn't the topic of the article?

You didn't cite a single piece of information in the second paragraph of that section, but I figured out where part of it came from because you copied and pasted from one of your sources. Two pieces of information that you copied were "The 16S rRNA of the bacterium Aquifex pyrophilus, a microaerophilic, oxygen-reducing hyperthermophile, has been sequenced directly from the PCR amplified gene." and "This deep branching to the bacterial tree supports the idea that the bacteria are of thermophilic ancestry", although, to your credit, you did change a single word in the second example. Your lack of citations for most of this leads me to believe that this was more of a rough draft than something you intended to publish, but that is only when looking at this in a very charitable light. Also, it was stated in some of the training modules that copying something to a sandbox/draft is still plagiarism regardless of if it ends up in the final article or not.

In summary, cite your sources and rewrite a lot of what you wrote.Organization

You have this sentence which does not seem to make sense: "A close relative of A. pyrophilus, Aquifex aeolicus, has had its entire genome sequenced and it was entirely chemolithotropic/autotrophic lifestyle is supported by a small genome of only 1.55 megabases (one third the size of the E. coli genome)."

Perhaps changing "it was" to "its" would make it make sense, although I am not sure if that was what you intended to write or not.

Overall Impressions

You need to work on your article a bit more, but once you do that it will be a major improvement over how it was before you began this project.