User:JKaner04/Afifella/Zstevenson9 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? (provide username)
 * JKanero4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Afifella

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There has not been any content updated to the lead currently. There are other sections that have content in them.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there was clear sentence!
 * Now I would add an extra sentence to give a better description, but the first one is clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it has the major sections to come.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No just has the current sentence.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Not much has been added besides the one sentence. Will need to add an extra few sentences to make it a little more overview to the rest of the paper. I think after you have the sections completely laid out, then the lead will come naturally.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant thus far to the topic. I think the Etymology has unique first few sentences so far.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I would say the content is up to date, but the papers used a older, so making sure to find (if possible) some newer articles to make sure it is as up to date as possible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Bacteria grows/isolation areas. Also, the types of metabolisms it has or growth conditions.

Content evaluation
I think some of the missing information is where this bacteria grows/isolation areas. Also, the types of metabolisms it has or growth conditions. Content added was relevant. Will just need those extra details to create a nice well rounded article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, has a neutral tone with sources cited.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims were biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Content was neutral and had the necessary articles to back the statements.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources are back up.
 * Citations are there for all the stated information
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources seem thorough, but not a lot of information has been added to this draft. So, cannot make a great judgement on it.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources seem to be current to an extent. Some articles are older, but I feel is necessary to get the best background. The so far cited sources are those older papers, but going through the references I think there are new papers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked three of the links and they all worked. Took me straight to the paper.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are there. I believe there are good amount of references to be able to add to the article. If not I believe a few more references will give the necessary info. With that the article will come together well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is only about 5 sentences, but they are all concise. Somewhat choppy, but I think it will flow better once more is added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can tell. I believe is error free currently.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are two sections that are becoming organized. I think another section could help. Such as growth conditions or environment.

Organization evaluation
I think it was a great start to the organization, but just need a few more sections. It can give the reader a better idea of where to go quickly for the necessary info.

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

No images were added


 * 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
None

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Good start to the list of sources. I believe there will be more addition to this as those fine details of growth and environment start to show.
 * 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?
 * Yes.

New Article Evaluation
Discoverable with the references. Had necessary people for it.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think it is a start to adding to better overall quality of the article. More will need to be added to give the article depth.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the sections are a good start. I like the breakdown of Etymology and the species. Sources sections has a nice array, so it should be better more including more remarks.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add additional sections to the article to account for those stated above. Once added more to the article. You can add more to the lead to give a great overview of whats to come with the bacteria.

Overall evaluation
Look at the guiding questions above. I wanted to address each one within those to create the evaluation.