User:Kimwhite11/Bioaugmentation/Pmatel16 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)     Kim White Kimwhite11
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bioaugmentation no sandbox draft just direct edits

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes but could be more clear
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? not really
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is detailed but not overly

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is well written but could be a little more straightforward. for example the types of organisms used can be mentioned but then they should be included in another section with additional details. Maybe directly compare bioaugmentation to biostimulation to emphasize the difference between the two methods. Also mention it is a form of bioremediation. That seems like an important detail that has been left out early on.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? it could use more relevant sources especially relating to applications
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? i think all that is there is good and nothing should be omitted, but more detail about the mechanisms of certain organisms could be included in applications

Content evaluation
There could be more detail with applications and i think pictures or specific organisms in those cases would add a lot of quality to the article

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
Due to the subject manner and topic, persuasion is not a goal and the tone used seems appropriate and is educational

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? maybe
 * Are the sources current? they could be updated
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
More sources could be included and older ones could be replaced.

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? yes but more sections could be beneficial

Organization evaluation
I think the order of what is there is good but more sections could add greater depth to the topic in general

Maybe split the separate applications into their own sections then add detail that way

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? maybe??
 * 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? yeah for the most part aside from maybe applications
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Not sure what was added but whatever is there is solid
 * What are the strengths of the content added? concise and easy to follow
 * How can the content added be improved? more detail and better sectioning of applications

Overall evaluation
Overall good but could use more details like real life examples for all applications and have applications be their own sections. Also combine references and sources because it seems awkward to have both sections