User:Schracksm/Azotobacter chroococcum/Kimwhite11 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) Schracksm
 * 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? n/a
 * 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? Somewhat, doesn't really describe its uses in lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Maybe too concise, the applications/uses could be expanded on

Lead evaluation
The lead is good. I don't think it needs the information about the scientist who discovered it since its not really relevant to the species itself. Could maybe introduce the uses of the bacteria as well.

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? no

Content evaluation
The content is good. It does a good job describing the bacteria in detail.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is presented in a concise and proper way and it provides only the facts on the bacteria.

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? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are good.

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? yes

Organization evaluation
The article is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? sort of
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Images and media evaluation
The image makes sense once the article had been read. Maybe could use an image of the actual bacterium itself.

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? Not sure what has been added, but the overall article is very detailed and thorough
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very detailed and well-organized
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe an image of the physical bacteria would be nice otherwise maybe adding a lead into the uses in the introduction and removing the details about the scientist

Overall evaluation
The overall article is written very well. It gives the important details of the bacteria and is very informative. Could have a picture of the physical bacterium. Could remove the details about scientist and introduce the uses section within the introduction.