User:Sydneyyeargain312/Thorarchaeota/16mslack 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) Sydneyyeargain312
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Asgard (archaea)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all references are within the last 10 or so years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Possibly add more about the classification rather than only showing where it lands on a family tree.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe try to explain the metabolism that goes on in the cell. Help to explain the picture presented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? nope.

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
 * Are the sources current? Very
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Sure do!

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? Not that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think so

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Not yet.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, big and easy to see. Most people like to see pictures than just read.

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? Not too long so that's good
 * 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, lots of other pages!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think so considering it's brand new.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like the idea that it is new and recently being discovered. It's exciting how much we have to learn compared to the small amount that we do know. Just think of all the WikiPages we could make!!
 * How can the content added be improved? Once again, I would just try to explain the pictures so if the reader can't understand the picture, they can reference the description to help make sense of them.