User:Mattdwill97/Hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis/AimeeByin Peer Review

Lead: The lead section was easy to understand even with the complicated subject. I like the use of the visual chemical equation.

Content: The content is current and relevant to the subject.

Tone and Balance: The article has a neutral viewpoint and is well-balanced.

Sources and References: From what I could tell, the citations are reliable and are primary research. All sources were relevant and updated.

Organization: The article was concise, clear, and easy to read for the subject.

Suggestion: 1) There needs to be a period after microbial communities or change the "due" to a lowercase.

2) I would suggest changing the wording of "globules of sulfur" to sulfur globules.

3) You can use the "cite" button in Wikipedia to put the citation in as a number. This will make it less distracting to readers.

Other than that the article I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.

Overall impressions: Overall I think it was very organized and gave reliable information about the more tricky subject.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mattdwill97/Hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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.)