User:Micromeech/Sulfur metabolism/Scienceislife22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Sulfur Metabolism edited by Micromeech.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Sulfur metabolism - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sulfur metabolism - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Before I start, there is no draft in the Sandbox. I am not sure if you are editing directly on the Article's page. If you are, you have to go to the Wikiedu page and copy the article itself into the Sandbox draft page and edit there. Once your article is finished and ready to be published, that is when you post it onto the official article site.

Lead

The lead is well written. Has a neutral tone and good descriptive information on the topic as well. The lead sentence is appropriate. It is concise and clear. It also a good number of hyperlinks which is good for vocabulary understanding. All information presented in the lead is present in other sections.

Content

Has a neutral tone and a good information. The sections are relevant to the topic and provides well written information that is displayed in a balanced way. There is no information that is over or underrepresented. My only comment would be to maybe put Sulfur Oxidizing Bacteria in its own section as well as the Sulfur Oxidizing Archaea. The information is important, and I believe this would make the article easier to understand. The sections have good headers as well. It's not entirely necessary but maybe adding a section talking about how increases or decreases in sulfur in the environment can impact sulfur metabolism. I believe it would add good information to the article.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and balanced. There are no biases towards a specific viewpoint in the text. All information is based on facts.

References

The references work and the information cited matches the articles as well. Citations include older and current information which indicates a well-researched article. The references work and are relevant to the topic.

Organization

The article is concise, clear, and an easy read. The sections could be properly divided. The subsection could be a section on its own. I did not see any grammatical errors in the text.

Images

They images go well with the topic. I am not sure, but if there is a sulfur metabolism cycle that is different between Archaea and Bacteria, maybe add a diagram of each one.

The article seems well researched and well executed in the writing in my opinion. Great job!