User:KPadavich/Methylomirabilis oxyfera/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)
 * KPadavich
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:KPadavich/Methylomirabilis oxyfera

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes the lead has been updated. A few sentences were added to the paper.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Introductory sentence was well written. Giving a good background of the bacteria. Sentences following were wonderful to give a more detailed idea of this bacterias potential.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not have any major sections currently
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The lead is the only thing added currently.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise. It think the lead should stay as is and then move in to new sections.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead has a great start to it. If anything the lead could stay as is until you finish other sections. Then address the lead again and detail it necessary where needed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, references seem to be from newer articles. Could get even more recent, but 2010 is not too bad.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes lots of content missing. Has a great overview, but where were the environments for this bacteria found. Any sequence similarites to others. Or other known species of this bacteria.

Content evaluation
There is not a whole lot of content here yet. I think there needs to be more work in the environments where the nitrite occurs with this bacteria. Any sequence potentials or other metabolism. The lead is great though.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * 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
Tone and balance so far are neutral and I believe will stay in that direction. Sentences have been cited to give backup to the points.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Current to an extent. 2010 on some. I would count that close to current depending on how much work has been done.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, see above
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 3 of the links worked

Sources and references evaluation
I believe the 3 references currently are good. I think adding a few more will give the background necessary to have a more well rounded article with more information as stated above.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No

Organization evaluation
The current sentences are well written, but there are no other sections included in the article. More work will need to be done to address the entire background, depth of info on this microbe.

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


 * 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
No Images

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?
 * Not exhaustive, but I believe more can be added
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * It has references

New Article Evaluation
There are reference links to find the journal articles which I believe are reliable. More articles will need to be discovered to give an in depth look at the bacteria.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think the content added has improved the article because at least there are some details in to the growth. Strengths are on the lead paragraph. Otherwise there was no other information included in this article so the rest will have to be improved on, which can stem from those extra references.