User:RavynCasey/Lactic acid bacteria/Sydneyyeargain312 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? (provide username) 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? Yes, she mentions the what LAB are
 * 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? No-it is a very small paragraph
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is precise

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? yes there is missing information. there is so much information on LAB. it is a very short paragraph

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? underrepresented-needs more information in general
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?yes
 * Are the sources current?yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?the links do not bring me to the article

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?no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it needs to be broken down more into subtopics with more information. One main idea and then some details, then another main idea and some details

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? when you hover over the blue highlighted words it shows pictures and definitions
 * Are images well-captioned?there are not actual pictures just when you hover over the blue words
 * 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 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?
 * 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?yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?it gives good examples
 * How can the content added be improved?need more information