User:Schacher iastate/Desulfobacterales/Fungus enthusiast Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Schacher iastate


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schacher%20iastate/Desulfobacterales?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schacher%20iastate/Desulfobacterales?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Lead
The drafted lead roughly says the same information as the current article but in a way that flows much better than the current one. The first sentence, however, may contain a mistake or should be worded differently beacuase the "are an order of order of sulfate" does not make much sense to me. There is also a chance to add a bit more detail in the lead about the contents of the rest of the article. Other than those things, the lead is looking good! It is very concise and clearly states the topic of the article.

Content
If there is an article that already exists discussing the sulfate reduction process, then added the biochemisty section might be uneccessary. It might be useful to describe how this order specficially does this, but you likely do not need to deep dive into the process.

In the environmental roles section, it might be useful to add why breaking down organic materials is useful to the overarching ecosystem/environment. It might be obvious to us, but to others just reading this article it might be useful to clearly state that. It also might flow better to put the second sentence in the evironmental roles section at the end instead of the middle. This would connect the concept of moleculear hydrogen cycling that you state in the first sentence. I also think the word "by" was forgotten in the third sentence. Expect for those minor things, the content is good and allows for an pretty easy understanding of the hydrogen cycling concept. If there is a wikipedia page that already exists for hydrogen cycling or fermenting, then it might be useful to link those.

Other things
The article is neutral. I could not find any concerning terms or claims that would show bias. The organization thus far is good, but there could be minor adjustments with the sections themselves that would provide better flow.