User:Jkim777/Myxococcus xanthus/PatrickDenney3 Peer Review

General info
Jkim777, Sam Ball, Clairegriffin8, Oliviasc0203
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jkim777/Myxococcus xanthus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Myxococcus xanthus

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead has an additional sentence describing motility, and it has a strong introductory sentence to the article. It doesn't give much of a description on the main topics of the article (but I don't think we've made any changes to the lead yet so props to you guys for already thinking about adding info). It doesn't have any irrelevant information and it's very concise.

Content:

The content is very relevant to the topic! Everything seems to be up-to-date and nothing seems to be out of place. I wrote the metabolism section on our article & I like yours a lot better with how much easier it is to read, great consolidation and flow. I don't think the article deals with any equity gaps. I think if you guys just keep expanding the type of things you're doing it will be perfect, everything seems to be coming together very well.

Tone/Balance:

Everything is neutral and without bias. I think the morphology and environment sections are slightly underrepresented but I don't blame you guys with having to make an entire new section to put in the article. No persuasion

Sources/References:

All the sources look good so far! Every paragraph has a citation, sources seem very reliable, thorough, and up-to-date

Organization:

Very concise and easy to read, no spelling or grammar errors. I love how well the information matches up to the headings, each subsection is a good addition that makes good points.

Overall I think it looks great! Obviously there's more work to be done for all of us but I think you guys have done a great job on everything you've added. I think if you guys continue adding information and finding more sources at the rate it's at it'll be great.