User:RavynCasey/Lactic acid bacteria/Pmaymicro Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? RavynCasey
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RavynCasey/Lactic acid bacteria

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? For the most part yes, but the exopolysaccharides section should be changed to say the health benefits of exopolysaccharides or something to this effect because I feel like it talks mostly about how the exopolysaccharides affect the health of a human.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe it is concise and to the point very well written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes it is relative and interesting to the reader.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe so, although one of their articles that is cited was created in October 2001 and that might be a little out of date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? instead of putting LAB just write out lactic acid bacteria it can be less confusing for people that are not good with abbreviations (i.e. me).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? nope not at all it just presents the information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? For the exopolysaccharides I would suggest that you explain a little bit of the structure of the exopolysaccharides and where they are found on the lactic acid bacteria.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not try to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, their sources are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current? Most of them are. There is one that is written in October 2001 and that might not be super current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media There are no images or media added.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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

It is not a new article


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel that it does provide some useful information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is interesting and provides a setting where this information is useful.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think it looks very good. Maybe just find another source that is more up to date. Also explain the structure of the exopolysaccharides.