User:Ipersia/Mercury methylation/Ahiggs1013 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? Ipersia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ipersia/Mercury methylation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead is quick and to the point while also accurately relaying information about the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes and no. It mentions parts of the article that will be mentioned, but not each of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is no existing article so it does provide a great base for an article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is nice and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The information is good at explaining what the different aspects of the mercury methylation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is pretty up to date with the oldest article being about 10 years old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. I feel like all of the content is relative.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all of the information presented is from a neutral standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. They were all neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints were mentioned. The only viewpoint represented is that there isn't currently a lot of information about the topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The article doesn't try to persuade the reader to any position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. The information is up to date and is relative to the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. There isn't currently a lot about this topic so the articles they did find were perfect.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. The sources are from 2008 and 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. All of the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but I found a few grammatical and organizational errors, that might just be me being nitpicky. Two different points would be mentioned and when they went into detail, the aforementioned topic was described, but not the first one.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could tell.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The topics are well organized. Each topic is focused in a specific group and the topics are in an organized manner.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images included.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no image included.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images included.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no imaged included.

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? Yes. There are 2 credible sources given.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I feel like the amount of sources reflects the amount of information currently available about the topic. I was a bit confused because there seems to be a lot of information, but only 2 sources are listed. Do their sources contain that amount of information? Did they forget to credit a source?
 * 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. Their formation is very similar to a typical Wikipedia article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes. They added a link to the mercury cycle.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Since there is no current article, I feel like they have a good base to go off of. They provided a lot of information that was clear and to the point.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content was accurate and gave a good overview of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Better organization inside of the actual topics themselves.