User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans/Apple10145 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? Delftia Acidovorans: The Biology and Biochemistry section.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans

Lead

 * Since the Lead is the first section of the article, this does not apply to the Biology and Biochemistry section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, but one source was from 1999, may not be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

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? Not a lot of info is in this section, so maybe more could be added?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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? Mostly, only one was from 1999, rest in 2011, 2012 and 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most of the points in this section came from one source, cited as source 1.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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- in major sections.

Images and Media

 * No images added to this section.

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? Maybe more can be added to this section.
 * 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.

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? Learning about the strains, type, and metabolism of Delftia Acidovorans is important for readers of the article to know.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add more sources- first paragraph of this section is just from one source.

Overall evaluation
'''I thought this section was very good. The only things I saw was a source from 1999 that may be considered out of date, and this section just had five sources (which is good) but source 1 and 6 were the only ones mentioned heavily. Maybe when editing more information from the other three sources can be implemented in this section of the article.'''