User:Sarahlp123/Delftia deserti/Anonymous122020 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? Sarahlp123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sarahlp123/Delftia deserti

Lead

 * 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
 * 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? It's very concise.

Content

 * 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? No
 * Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

 * 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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are all reliable sources.
 * 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? Yes. I check the link and it's all work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is only one part that could be more concise. The first sentence in the Biology and Biochemistry section that said, "Delftia deserti cells are short rods and motile by means of one or two polar flagella". Instead of saying, "...by means of...", it could be more concise by use one of these following word, "using or utilizing or through".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no image include in the article.

For New Articles Only

 * 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
 * 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 except that there is no content table in this article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions

 * Overall, you did well keeping this article in neutral tone with reliable source. However, you could mention source 2 information a little bit more and it would be great if you could integrate these 2 sources information together. Such as found the common statement and in in-text citation cite both sources at the same sentence/paragraph. Also if it's possible, you could add a little bit more source into this article but I knew that this is a new species so the information that available right now might be hard to find.