User:Mattdwill97/Hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis/Jnitsch Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Julia is reviewing Matthew's Chemosynthesis article


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattdwill97/Hydrogen_sulfide_chemosynthesis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I know that this was not part of the article that you added, but the original lead to the article contains a mention about giant tubeworms that seems out of place. The rest of the lead deals specifically with the chemical reaction. Maybe you could move the mention of tubeworms elsewhere? Like in your last section maybe.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None of the claims appear to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe that the overall viewpoint is quite balanced. Though it might be nice to have a couple of the points elaborated on.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * You don't have any of your citations as links yet so I wasn't able to check to see if they work or if they support what you claimed in your article. If you need help figuring out how to link your citations, let me know! I had to mess around with it for a while before I figured it out.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Your sources all appear to be from reliable publishers/journals. They are all creditable and peer reviewed.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * The sources are all current.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article?
 * I believe it has. I especially enjoy that you went more in depth into how the reaction actually generates ATP for the organism. It makes the whole process more meaningful to know what the end product is.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I really enjoy that everything you added is written in a concise, easily understandable manner. I believe that someone without a chemistry or biochemistry background would be able to follow what you wrote.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I do believe that there are a few points that you could elaborate on. You never describe what an oxidation reaction is in your first section you added. People accessing this article may not have a chemistry background and may not be familiar with redox reactions. You also mention in your second section a handful of organisms that are capable of hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis but it may be interesting if you were able to describe these species a bit more and if there are any hypotheses on why these organisms perform this process.