User:Ipersia/Mercury methylation/RavynCasey Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Ipersia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Ipersia/Mercury methylation

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead is clear, concise, and understandable.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It outlines the general structure of the article, but doesn't outline each of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead only contains information that will later be mentioned and covered in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and to the point.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant to the article topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The sources cited are good, especially considering the oldest citation is from about 10 or 11 years ago. Good sources and good content.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content is relevant to the topic and there isn't any I would suggest removing.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Included content is neutral and factual.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Same as above.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints are balanced and unbiased.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is justified and factual.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the content is cited well with good quality sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources used are thorough and supportive of the content of the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources used are good quality and recent sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content was well written, but could use a good proofreading to maintain comprehension and focus on the article topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None, but some rewording could be helpful to make things clear and easy to understand.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the topic is well structured.

Images and Media

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

For New Articles Only

 * 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 credible sources listed.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * More sources could be helpful.
 * 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?
 * The article layout and structure is good and standard for a Wikipedia article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * They linked to existing articles.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * This would make a great starting point for other users to contribute to.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Article was structured in a very legible and coherent way and the content was very informative.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Exploration of the individual sections of the article would be welcome and inclusion of more sources would likely expand the amount of topic coverage.