User:Stefanija Kovacevic/sandbox/Peer Review Bacteriophage

Peer review[ edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[ edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ben Rogers (User:BRogers42)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BRogers42/sandbox

Lead[ edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation[ edit]
No lead.

Content[ edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, unsure where it fits.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Unsure.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content is currently all together and not structured.

Content evaluation[ edit]
Unstructured but all seems to be new.

Tone and Balance[ edit]
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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation[ edit]
Very good neutral tone.

Sources and References[ edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Only two sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, need more sources for broad range of facts presented.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, sources are recent in terms of plant pathology (2017).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, appear to be open source as well.

Sources and references evaluation[ edit]
Good, keep building.

Organization[ edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content is well-written but there is no structure or flow to paragraph.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No.

Organization evaluation[ edit]
Keep organizing.

Images and Media[ edit]
NOT EVALUATED, WILL BE PUT IN LATER IN THE COURSE.

Overall impressions[ edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Added new part of existing Bacteriophage article (uses in plant pathology).
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * All new, good sources so far, good sentence structure.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More sources, make subsections, have better lead-in's to sentences and don't veer off-topic to point you're trying to make.

Overall evaluation
Good start, continue editing.