User:Simrankmann/Facultative anaerobic organism/Inquiringmindhive Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Simrankmann)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Simrankmann/Facultative_anaerobic_organism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Facultative anaerobic organism

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead Section

The following article’s lead is very strong because it concisely describes the topic and allows the reader to have a general understanding prior to reading the article. When reading this lead, I went back to my article and noticed that a specific section I wrote was overly detailed. In my opinion, this lead can be even better if two things are addressed. For one, in the first sentence it is mentioned that these are the most versatile organisms. This information is not presented in the article after this point is made. Maybe one section can shortly address this point. In addition to this, some of the article’s main sections are not addressed. The lead talks about some of the final electron acceptors used by facultative anaerobes, maybe a brief statement can be made summarizing the aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Finally, just a small detail, I feel that replacing species in the first sentence with organism would make this sentence stronger.

Sources and References

The reference section is strong because it uses only peer-reviewed sources to back up the content. In addition to this, these sources are current and all of the available links work. A lot of the statements are attributed to different sources and present different points of view. To improve this section there is one specific citation that I believe can be clearer. In the nitrate reduction section, the process of dissimilatory nitrate reduction is covered. This section uses one link frequently that sends the reader to a webpage containing a book. This webpage contains the abstract for a particular chapter in this book. This chapter is not available unless you have paid access or a subscription. Even though the content of this chapter looks like it is applicable to the material in the Wikipedia article, the reader will have no way of looking further into this specific sub-topic if they want more information.

Content

The content section is very strong because it expands from the previous article. The previous article gave a very surface level description of this topic and did not delve into the aerobic respiration and fermentation that is carried out by facultative anaerobes. In addition to this, the content added is relevant to the topic. For instance, the pathogenic nature of these organisms is discussed and their applicability to humans. I believe that additional content can be added to the aerobic section to improve this article. For instance, the final sentence of this section was a little unclear for me. I was unsure how oxygen being used as an electron acceptor led to the four-electron reduction of oxygen to water. Maybe a little more detail regarding the electron carriers and how many electrons they donate can clear up why oxygen being used as a terminal electron acceptor results in this four-electron reduction.

Tone and Balance

The tone of this article is very strong because there are no phrases that make it feel biased. In addition to this, I believe that each section length is equal to its importance to the article’s subject. For both tone and balance I feel that one thing can be taken into consideration to improve this article. In respect to tone, there is one instance where claims are made on behalf of unnamed groups or people. When talking about antimicrobial susceptibility, it is mentioned that different studies looked into the response of facultative anaerobes to antimicrobial treatments. In this specific sentence, only one study is referenced. Instead of putting studies, maybe the sentence can directly address that particular study. Also, one of the viewpoints is heavily represented in this article. The source regarding transformations of nitrogen, which I discussed in the sources section, is used five different times in this article.