User:Mroghair/Massilia (bacterium)/Mjbmicro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mroghair


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mroghair/Massilia_%28bacterium%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Massilia (bacterium)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead is concise and describes the bacterium well
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, perhaps this would be a good thing to add
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it gives a solid background on the organism and a good introduction
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The added content is relevant and comprehensive

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but I believe all the sentences should be cited after the period of each sentence and not before.
 * 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?
 * Yes! Many great sources!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No, many peer-reviewed articles are already cited.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A couple of grammatical comments:
 * Under complex polymer degradation, the third sentence hydrolyse = hydrolyze?
 * Under Plant-growth-promoting traits, the fourth sentence "DNA, can also nutrients" seems to be missing a word
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the added content greatly improves the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is well supported by references. Great addition of hyperlinks throughout. The article draft includes major topics which will provide a good article for people to learn about this bacterium. It is an easy read and has a great flow for readers to follow!
 *  How can the content added be improved? 
 * Just a couple of small things - move the citations after the period of each sentence, double check some of the grammar, and consider adding a sentence or two to the lead in order to set up the rest of the article. There is nothing major needing any changes. I liked each of the topics and believe they are all beneficial to add. I enjoyed reading this!!