User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans/Kmstayer 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?  Zzubair99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans (bioremediation)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No the lead has not been updated yet
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Bioremediation is not mentioned in the introduction
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Some sections are missing
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise more needs to be added

Lead evaluation
The lead needs to add more information on this subject but that is probably something best done after the other sections are complete. Anyone can probably do this

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content was pulled from sources that are relatively recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would consider removing selenium since source twelve does not specifically implicate Delftia acidovorans unless we are allowed to assume that when the paper refers to Delftia species collectively it means all of the ones listed in the paper. On that note it may be more beneficial to state what all strains of Delftia are able to do on the Delftia page instead.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? On wikipedia information on Delftia acidovorans is scarce so this information will let the public know more about the usefulness of D. acidovorans

Content evaluation
I found the content easy to understand and mostly relevant to the topic. I also think that it is well organized

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes all of the claims made are facts about acidovorans that are backed up by references
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No since the section is about a bacteria it would be hard to come up with a position about it
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? each way that Delftia participates in bioremediation is well documented with no one type being favored over others in the description
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this section is neutral and professional with no opinionated claims about delftia being made

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 both sources used are fairly recent as of 2012 and 2015
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are up to date and relevant to the topic source twelve needs a date to be added though

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes The language used is concise and clear not overly scientific
 * 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 it is well broken down by separating bioremediation of heavy metals from degradation of chemicals

Organization evaluation
The section is well organized with an obvious break placed between different types of bioremediation the language used is clear and concise.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Images and media evaluation
No Images have been added so this section does not apply

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 two sources are listed in this section with many more sources being used overall
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Overall there are many sources used in this article so I think it should be good
 * 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? I think that the headings were based on other articles of the same type so yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes other article links are provided

New Article Evaluation
I think overall this article is a good start for adding more content about D. acidovorans to Wikipedia.

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? It adds new information about how Deftia can be used in bioremediation
 * How can the content added be improved? If anymore information can be found on this topic it should be added however I think that the sources cited are well represented