User:Shivmirani/Delftia acidovorans/Zzubair99 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 that I have been working on myself along with my group members for Delftia Acidovorans, but the page was originally created by Shiv Mirani.
 * 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? It appears to be up to date with all the information currently written.
 * 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? No, but there is a content box at the top of the page which shows all the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead just gives an introduction of the main points/characteristics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is just about the main concepts presented in a concise, simple way to introduce the bacteria to the audience. It lists the key features that identify D. acidovorans, and sets the tone for the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. A couple sources may be old, but that does not mean they are unreliable. All the information written appears to be in line with what is currently and generally known about D. acidovorans.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all the sections are related and relevant to D. acidovorans in terms of what should be known about it on the surface level.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, I believe the article is in line with Wikipedia's equity gaps because D. acidovorans is an important but underrepresented bacteria that the general audience should know about. The reason we all are writing articles about Delftia is to bring about awareness and knowledge for current and future scientists and readers.

Content evaluation
Overall, I found the content to be written well and relevant to the topic. It is important to synthesize a lot of information in an understandable way for the novel D. acidovorans. Being a co-writer of this article, I tried my best to keep a professional yet simple tone in order to make the information easy to read and understand, without being too dense. I believe my co-writers did the same thing and the article flows well and is organized well too.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content sticks to the facts and simple statements about D. acidovorans.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Since this is more of a factual article, there really was no opportunity to be biased about the characteristics that define D. acidovorans.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overall, there is ample information for each section relevant to its importance. However, the taxonomy/genetics subtopic needs more work and detail or it should be combined with some other subtopic, maybe like the history subtopic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, as I explained for the second question, there is no bias because the article exists to expand the knowledge about D. acidovorans.

Tone and balance evaluation
The questions answered above succinctly explain the overall tone and balance of the article. The article keeps a professional tone and the balance for each subtopic is respective to its relevancy and amount of research available.

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, the sources vary in what information they contribute to the article. Some are about the basics of D. acidovorans whereas others are about important research and studies that showed the gold-producing facts about it.
 * Are the sources current? Mostly, yes they are. There are a couple that are from a few years ago, however that does not make them outdated. They are usually the ones that categorized D. acidovorans and discuss important findings about it.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the authors do show diversity based on their names, with many Asian authors/researchers, some of whom are women.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work, but source 11 does not have a link so I will need to fix that.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, all the information written is cited at the end of the article and the links work properly and the citations look to be in the correct format. This is greatly helped by Wikipedia's automatic citation generator that organizes the sources and provides in-text citation as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, although it is important to keep a professional tone and use the jargon, I believe it is written clearly and is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, there are no major grammatical errors detected.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The article is organized quite well and is broken down into sub-topics, some of which have their own sub-subtopics.

Organization evaluation
As said before, the article is organized well and flows well too. The subtopics are also organized well, going from general information to focusing down on specific research findings and utilizations 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.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images used.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images used.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or videos embedded in the article, 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? I am not sure. Most of the articles are about D. acidovorans, but a couple articles cover bacteria other than that.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
 * 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 article is organized in a similar fashion, but it is simpler since it is not a scholarly article from a scientific journal.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

New Article Evaluation
This new article is cited well by many sources, but it does need more outreach so it should be linked to similar 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? It is organized well, flows well, and is cited well. The introduction covers the main topics and describes D. acidovorans succinctly.
 * How can the content added be improved? In order for the article to reach out more so that more people know about D. acidovorans and more research is conducted on it, the article should be linked to other similar articles.

Overall evaluation
This article is written well, and talks about the general facts and then how it can be used too. The article is multifaceted, discussing different research that D. acidovorans can be used for, and it also discusses it in a medical sense, when it acts like a pathogen. There is no conclusion which is a good thing because otherwise it would be biased and influencing the reader. There is space to grow the article, but it does not seem empty or incomplete.