User:Schracksm/Azotobacter chroococcum/Jaskemc 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)
 * Schrack
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Azotobacter chroococcum

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
 * Would like to see more about tobacco mosaic disease and how it is caused by this bacterium.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I see nothing that appears to be not neutral, however I would be interested to see more of how it actually causes tobacco mosaic disease
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would show a bit more of the negative, how does it cause this disease, and are there any others that it causes.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would try to show some of its negative effects maybe?

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?
 * Some are and some are not.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The ones I clicked did work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There is a sentence that uses a ";" in the characteristics section that I would break into two, but it is not necessary.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes but I would like to see one more section about tobacco mosaic disease as that is mentioned in the intro.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Possibly an image of the bacteria itself for future editors, but I know that time constraints prohibit our class.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * no caption on the single image
 * 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 (N/A)
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?
 * I am unsure of what it was to begin with, however it could use some more substance. Nothing crazy though, just maybe one more section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Unsure what was added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See previous comments