User:Imasciencer/Slime layer/Sabrina Mierswa 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? Imasciencer
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Slime layer

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead eloquently defines what the slime layer is. It states exactly what it is, what is made up of, and how it is defined. It provides an good intro to the topic as it covers both subset titels of structure and evolutionary adaptation in terms of bacteria. If possible, I would include one of the functions of the slime layer as definied in the evolutionary adaptation. I would also place what the slime layer is made up of into the structure category and just have the first sentence left.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The information presented is somewhat up to date with most cited information from the 70s. The latest article cited was a 2017 article. I suggest adding more recent info that was published for research, so that the article has the most up to date info. I suggest using at least one resource from 2019 or sooner in order to capture the most recent findings. All info is relevant to the topic, but more information could be useful as what hte general structure is. This could include where the proteins are found in the slime layer, or what specific types of bacteria usually have a slime layer. I would use more info from research papers that discuss more info about examples of the slime layer for certain bacteria.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral. I would definitely add more sources for each statement as nothing within the article has two sources. This means that the claims presented may or may not be true as they are not backed up. Everything looks to be neutral in terms of positions and viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
More sources should be added to each claim in order to back it up. This means secondary sources should be used. Additionally, the sources should be more current as most are from the 1970s. The latest one is also from 2017, which is not very current so more recent research should be cited. The links do work for the sources which is a plus, including those that are older.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content that is there is well written. There appears to be an incomplete sentence that needs to be deleted. Overall the content is well organized into sections and well broken up. I would suggest adding another section related to what bacteria have a slime layer based on reading research papers and any significant findings related to slime layer recently.

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?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There were no images added to the article. The table present serves as a way to sum up what a slime layer is to see how the slime layer fits into the structure of a bacteria. If possible, I would add an image of a slime layer, particularly an animated picture if you could make one to add to the article to highlight what it looks like.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article is well-written and has a lot of great content. Additional newer sources should be added, along with backing claims up with two sources or more. Additionally, there is a sentence that is not finished that needs to be removed. I would move the second two sentences of the intro as well to the structure. There should also be some more research papers that should be cited based on newer research about the topic. Overall great job and very informative on the topic.