User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans/Shivmirani 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) Zainab Zubair
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zzubair99/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead looks 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? Not really.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it gives a brief introduction to the overall topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and not too detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No there is not.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes this is because Delftia Acidovorans is a topic which has very less information present and so this article talks about and represents it nicely.

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there are many sources present
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are thorough and represent the topic nicely.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are relatively recent for the most part.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there are some females, etc.
 * 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 looks to be clean.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down nicely.

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? N/A
 * 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
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? Good variety of sources that represents the topic nicely.
 * 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 there are many sources that are articles

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? Overall cohesive, not overcomplicated, and organized.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think a bit more information could have been added.