User:Lluviosa/3-Hydroxypropionate bicycle/KBMICR23 Peer Review

General info
( Lluviosa, Jet Air322, Xbeagley13, Daytontalbot)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lluviosa/3-Hydroxypropionate bicycle
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):3-Hydroxypropionate bicycle

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead heading has been added, but no information has been added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not present at this time, but I have no doubt it'll be great when they get around to adding one!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * see above
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * see above
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * see above

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content currently available is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell, based off of the resources provided, yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The lead section does not have any content, and I would love to see more expansion on the information present. I think the article could really benefit from spreading some of the information out and adding more detail about what bacteria, why and how they use the product, etc., in an attempt to make the article read more comprehensive and to make it easier to follow.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * nope, but this is all from the previous authors. I'd love to re-evaluate when there is more added.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * nope!
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not see any new content, but the tone is fine.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Some are fairly old, but sometimes it can't be helped!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources have not changed from what I'm able to see when comparing the sandbox vs the published article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes, the links work well.

Organization

 * I would make sure that abbreviations accompany the first incidence of the phrase. *carbon dioxide (CO2)*

Images and Media

 * The images are great! Captions are well done, just make sure to cite the images if needed.