User:Sabrina Mierswa/Commamox/Sieradzkig 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? I am reviewing Sabrina Mierswa's article Comammox.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Comammox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * A comma is needed after the word Nitrospira
 * The lead shows a clear summary of the definition of comammox as well as important details in understanding what the process is.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead has a good and concise introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * From what I see, the lead does not have a brief description of the article's major sections, but it does mention the discovery of Nitrospira and what cycle comammox is associated with. So, this could count as being a brief description? However, there is nothing really describing the ecosystem as in section 3.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The only information I see that is not expanded upon is that the process of converting ammonia to nitrate was discovered 2006. However, I don't think this is a major issue. It is nice to have some background. However, if there is more history into this discovery, maybe link it or provide more detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is concise. It contains relevant information and is written in an easy-to-understand manner.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I think the lead is good. I'm not sure what the exact requirements of Wikpedia are regarding a lead, but I believe linking or expanding on the discovery of comammox would be a really great addition. If not, this does not retract from the quality of the lead. I like the flow and progress.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content seems relevant and what's great is there is a lot of it! I think you should link key terms like monooxygenase and other enzymes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The oldest source is from 1892 and the most recent source is from 2018. If you can find even more recent material, that would be great. The source from 1892 is interesting, but make sure the information matches with more recent studies.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It would be really awesome to describe the names of the genes associated with the growth (from gene annotations, etc.), but this is only extra detail. I am getting confused with the last sentence in Ecosystems of Comammox because I thought Nitrospira was a part of comammox, but maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly.

Content evaluation
Be consistent with how you name Nitrospira. Is it comammox Nitrospira, or just Nitrospira? Also, be careful with splitting up comammox and Nitrospira. I was getting a little confused through reading. Other than that, the content is very interesting and detailed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is very neutral with no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I can identify
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is well-written and does not report on any information in a biased or misinformed manner. There are many citations, indicating the support behind the statements made. Tone and balance are good from my perspective. The only sentence I found without a citation is under Comammox Nitrospira Bacteria which states that complete nitrifying Nitrospira are cornerstones of the nitrogen-cycling microbial community. Is this your statement or did you get this from a source?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I found only one sentence that does not have a citation. Other than that, the content is supported well.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The source from 1892 appears to be in Spanish or a latin-like language. Other than that, all other sources seem to reflect nitrification topics and information related to comammox.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The source from 1892 is not current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked worked well.

Sources and references evaluation
The only source I find questionable is the source from 1892 just because of how old it is. I am not sure how outdated it is.

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?
 * Not that I have identified
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Overall the organization of the article is good. Relevant information is grouped into its appropriate section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in this article.

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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are 7 sources. There could definitely be more sources supporting the information, but I think 7 is suitable for the amount of content present.
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes. There are some words that could use links, though.

New Article Evaluation
Words that are enzymes are the most relevant words that could be linked.

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?
 * The content is well-written and concise. The content also expands on why comammox is so beneficial as well as where it can be found and what it can be used for.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Linking more words, improving how recent sources are, expanding on genome information or history of the discovery.

Overall evaluation
I think the article is well-written and is an improvement from its previous condition. I like the way the information flows and is organized. The critiques that I have are minor because overall, the article is informative, well-supported, and complete.