User:JakeTayon/Adventurous motility/Pacman118 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JakeTayon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JakeTayon/Adventurous_motility?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Doesn’t exist (that I could find)

Evaluate the drafted changes
I feel like the lead section of the article was pretty good and explanatory, although it may have been a little on the short end. The lead also didn’t have a brief description of the article’s main descriptions but other than that, the lead was very helpful and clear.

From reading the article, I feel like the content was very relevant and helpful. It allowed me to understand some of the most important studies and hypotheses about adventurous mobility. I also feel that you included many of the important topics, although I bet with current research being done there will be more topics to add in the future. You also did a great job showing the different viewpoints of research and the article was relatively free from bias. The one improvement for your content would be to find if there are any more recent studies done. I saw a lot of references from 1998 and 2003-2007 and only one from 2022. That said, there may not be much research going on at the time so don’t sweat it.

I feel like your content was neutral in tone and balanced in the claims presented. I also am not a pro in microbiology so I’m not quite sure what other opinions are out there, but you didn’t seem biased in your writing about any viewpoints. I did not feel persuaded one way or another so that was good.

I was very impressed with how many resources you used as a group! I couldn’t find this article on normal wikipedia so I’m guessing this was all of your research and work and that was very impressive! The resources looked good to me, like I said before, the only thing that I would try to improve is the date of the resources and looking for more current studies. Your links worked great if you were wondering!

The writing was well written although there were a few grammatical errors (I counted three but there may have been more so look for those!). I liked the image and caption and everything you did with the image. I think you for sure followed wikipedia’s guidelines in as many aspects as you possibly could! One final improvement that I would make is linking a few of the vocab words from your article to those articles in wikipedia. This might make your article a bit more accessible.

Overall, great job! You can tell that you worked hard and spent a lot of time writing this article and I am very impressed.