User:Moss Enthusiast/Halomonas titanicae/ISUWIKI Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Moss Enthusiast


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moss%20Enthusiast/Halomonas_titanicae?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Halomonas titanicae

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The original lead was longer and overly descriptive. The new one is concise and clear. It has been updated well.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic?
 * Yes. Great attention grabber!
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the articles major sections?
 * Yes, very well.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is perfectly detailed.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. Some of the referenced information is from 2022!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * None that I am aware of.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I do not think this applies to articles with topics such as this. We are discussing a microbe.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content try to persuade the reader into thinking in a certain way?
 * No

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes! Lots of references!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough?
 * Yes, although the "eat away wreck of the titanic by 2030" reference
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all within the last 10 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by scientists that are experienced in microbial research and have an firm understanding of the microbe in question.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * I think the "eat away wreck of the titanic by 2030" reference might be kind of irrelevant. Although it does tie in the discovery and corrosion factor together.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They work.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written (concise, clear, and easy to read)?
 * The content is well written with lots of references and clear explanations.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized?
 * Yes, It is well organized. Although the heading "biology" seems pretty broad. Perhaps a more descriptive heading title would be better.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There is no caption for the image. It would be a huge benefit to add one!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Assuming that the Mann et al., 2010 citation is for the image, it should adhere to all copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The image with the scientific classification is always a good attention getter.