User:KenzeeF/Hamus (archaea)/Dylansalas Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KenzeeF


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KenzeeF/Hamus_%28archaea%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * The lead gives an overview of what archaea are, but also goes into some detail about archaeal appendages, which belongs in the body of the article rather than the lead.
 * The introductory sentence is clear and does well at introducing what archaea are.
 * The lead should be updated to summarize the main content of the article.
 * The section about appendages is informative and well written, but does not belong in this section.
 * The first sentence is concise and following that same structure would be produce a great lead section.

Content


 * Yes, this content is relevant to the topic. There are a few section headers that do not contain any information though.
 * This content is up to date.
 * The content that is present is useful and pertinent to the article's topic.
 * This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral/unbiased.
 * The content added does not possess any claims that are biased toward a particular position.
 * All of the viewpoints presented are represented in appropriate proportions.
 * The content added informs the reader without trying to persuade them towards a particular side.

Sources and References


 * There are a few statements in each of the body paragraphs that are not cited by a source. I am assuming that all of the information presented after one citation is taken from the source that is cited next.
 * Based on the titles of the sources, the content does reflect what the sources say because they are all dealing with Archaea.
 * Many of the sources are from reputable journals that reflect the available literature on Archaea and the details of it, like Hami.
 * Most of the sources are over a decade old, adding more current sources could improve the validity of this article. There is only one source that is under five years old, which is typically young enough to consider the source "current."
 * All of the sources are by scientists, probably graduate or PhD students that have a background in this field.
 * Each source used is from a peer-reviewed journal, there were no sources used that are from news coverage sites or just random websites.
 * I clicked on each source's link and all of them worked.

Organization


 * The content is clear and contains useful information, but the sentences could be shortened by using more concise language.
 * There are a few minor grammatical errors, just a few apostrophes and commas that need to be added and/or removed.
 * The content added is split up into clear paragraphs that appropriately separate the information.

Images and Media


 * This article does not contain any images or media.

For New Articles Only


 * The article contains well above the 3 reliable secondary sources needed to meet the notability requirement.
 * The list of sources is on the longer end, 9 sources in total. All of the sources deal with archaea, but this is such a niche topic that it would be quite difficult to find an article that mentions Archaeal Hami without the source being centered around Archaea.
 * There are no links to other articles within this article. Adding some links to things that are mentioned could help future readers to understand the topic better.

Overall Impressions


 * The content that was added has improved the quality of this article, considering that the article didn't exist before these authors starting composing it.
 * The content added does a great job of introducing what Archaea and Archaeal Hami are and explaining why they are relevant to Archaea.
 * Moving most of the content of the second paragraph of the Lead section to the body of the article would help improve this article. Adding content to the other sections of the Article body would greatly improve the quality of this article as well. Adding a link to what LUCA is, or explaining in more detail what it is directly in the article, would help readers to understand how closely related Archaea are to Eukaryotes.