User:RavynCasey/Lactic acid bacteria/Rheescrompton 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? no Lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? They immediately go into the body instead of giving us a introduction to the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No there are only 2 headers on the page
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Unsure as there isn't really a lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it focuses on the main topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All is newer information, looks like oldest article is 2001.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes the article needs more information and other headers but overall the information that is currently there is accurate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes no opinions are shown
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No it is all general information about the topic
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? More information can be added but nothing currently their is swayed to one way or the other
 * 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 each source looks to be reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes each citation has a good supply of information
 * Are the sources current? They are a bit older but not too old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The citations need a little work, if they could provide the links directly that would make it easier to access the citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the information makes sense and is to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Information seems pretty good grammatically. Always re-read the work to double check.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are only two sections but they they are separated nicely.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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? They have 4 reliable sources present.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? They could use more as they need more information overall.
 * 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 2 section headings but that is all for the article
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are in text links that lead to other articles to help better understand the information being written about.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the content is very good, just need more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is accurate and simple to read
 * How can the content added be improved? Just further research and adding an introduction so readers know exactly what is being talked about.