User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans/Rsv6 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) I am reviewing the article worked on by myself and my group members, Delftia acidovorans, and the page was created by Shiv Mirani, with the username Shivmirani.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead appears to be updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, while the Lead does not include this, the Contents box on the top of the page includes the sections covered, but not descriptions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the Lead is introducing the main topic, and giving brief background regarding the topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead introduces the main topic for the article, and gives a brief introduction.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, with regards to the scientific sources used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the article covers what it was meant to, though somewhat limited based on the information known so far in the scientific community regarding Delftia acidovorans.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, because D. acidovorans is an underrepresented area of research within the scientific community, and there is limited knowledge of it in the widespread community. The article deals with bringing more awareness to the topic and compile information about Delftia acidovorans for the public as the audience.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is up-to-date with regards to what is known regarding D. acidovorans, and discusses relevant ideas associated with the topic. The content has been constructed in a way to ease the understanding and bring more awareness among the public regarding D. acidovorans.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is written in a neutral, fact-based manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article is written very fact-based.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? While most sections have sufficient information added, the History section could include more about the discovery of D. acidovorans, and the Taxonomy section could be moved into the History sections for clarity as well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, while the article does discuss the roles of D. acidovorans in science, there is no biased side taken in the article for or against the topic.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I believe that the tone and balance was well accounted for in the article. As a co-writer of the article myself, I made sure to strictly state factual information that was unbiased, and the rest of my team did the same in their writing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, everything has sources noted.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the literature referenced is thorough and vast in information it provides about the variety of roles D. acidovorans provides.
 * Are the sources current? While there is one article that is slightly older than the others from 1999, the rest of the articles are noted to be written less than 10 years ago, which is relatively current. The older the articles does not mean the information is outdated though.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors do vary in diversity, as some are females and many are people of color as seen by their names.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do.

Sources and references evaluation
I believe that the sources used in the article were quite reflective of the information covered in the article, and the references are valid, as well as diverse in terms of the information they cover regarding the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content flows well for the most part and is understandable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I do not notice any major errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part, the content is well-organized. I do believe that since the Taxonomy section is quite short, as well as the History section, those two sections could be combined into one under History.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is well-organized and easy to follow going from more broad information to specific roles of D. acidovorans.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, no images were added.
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable, since no images were added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable, since no images were added.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable, since no images were added.

Images and media evaluation
While no images were used in the article, I believe that if one that is well-encompassing of D.acidovorans is used, it could enhance the understanding of the article as a whole.

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? I am not quite sure, since the articles mostly all refer to D. acidovorans, while some discuss other bacteria and organisms in conjunction.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 12 sources, and I would say that it is representative of the literature on the topic.
 * 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 would say that the layout of the article is similar with regards to sub-topic headings and such for organization, but the layout of information is more concise to target the general public.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, it does not.

New Article Evaluation
The article is written well and supported by sources, but there may need to be more sources that are independent of the topic to get a more holistic approach regarding the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the information added gives more insight into the roles of D. acidovorans.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is strictly factual, and quite concise in efforts to be easier to read. It is also organized well and discusses an underrepresented topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved with even better organization, and maybe adding images to make the article more visually appealing. The content should also link to other articles for outreach purposes.

Overall evaluation
The article is organized, and well written to give factual information about D. acidovorans that is unbiased, but still interesting to read. The way it is written makes the topic more understandable and gives the public an opportunity to learn about an underrepresented topic in science.