User:Natpollock/Integration host factor/Coleman.Judd Peer Review

General info
Natpollock
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natpollock/Integration_host_factor/Coleman.Judd_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review
 * 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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no distiguishable lead section and the lead could be made more clear to the reader.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is no introduction present in the article as it jumps straight to the body of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise/Non-existent.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is a newly created article and gives a clear understanding of the subject.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article could go more in depth but gives a great general description of the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not. The entirety of the article discusses genes and phage.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is a fact based article free from bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? 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, there is significant documentation to support the information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes it does. The content summarizes the sources well.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is not a large amount of resources available on the content but the added resources reflect the available information well.
 * Are the sources current?Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The topic is specialized and very narrow so there is little diversity in the authors.
 * 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.) All the sources are from primary articles and have a high level of reputability.
 * 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? It is very well written and constructed and is quite easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? All content has been sufficiently edited and is free of grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization is clear and concise and arranged in a way that is easy to understand and follow.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no attached images included.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? The article has in excess of the 2-3 reliable sources and provides a great reference point for the content.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Due to having little available, the article does a great job at including a significant amount of sources.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? There are bolded sections briefly but not clearly established sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Being a new article it obviously drastically increased the quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They give an in depth backing for the topic and present it in an easy to understand format.
 * How can the content added be improved? More overall content with more specific details.