User:TVenvisci/Melainabacteria/Kmvsetecka Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

TVenvisci


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:TVenvisci/Melainabacteria


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Melainabacteria

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
-I think that the lead is good so far. The lead lets me know what to expect in the following sections, while not going to far into detail. The lead provided a great overview of the microbe in question.

-The content in the lead section does a great job of introducing me to the topic and gives addequet background info. I think that the second sentence is the best sentence in getting me introduced to the topic.

-The lead does discuss the topics in the follwoing sections. I knew what to expect following the lead section. I am not sure how many sections we need following the lead section, some of the following sections are discussed in the lead and some are not. But these sections may still be in the process of being developed, I would try to somehow incorporate them into the lead.

-There are some peices in the lead part of the article that I did not see later on in other sections. Such as the period of time GEO, which may have been touched on a couple of times but not covered as much.

-Overall I think that the lead is detailed and not too wordy. The things I would look at would be incorporating all of the sections at some point in the lead.

Content
-I think that all of the content you have is relevent to your topic. The headings are related to your topic in important ways and I do not see any filler information that would turn the reader away.

-The resources are up-to-date, the oldest article is from 2014, which I would still consider recent. You did a great job of finding recent material, which helps the credibility of the information in your article.

-I think that the "groundwater harbor" section could be within another section or possibly elaborated more on. I think I would want to learn more about the topic and how it relates to the microbe.

-The article does not touch on underrepresented groups of people. I am not sure how this topic would be able to tie back to this issue. Possibly under the "implications to humans" section.

-I do think the last section could be narrowed a bit more and less words used in the section. I am not sure if the author was still debating what to do with the section or not.

Tone & Balance
-I think that overall tone of the article is neutral and is organized professionally. I would not change the tone and it gives and informative voice.

- The article is in the early stages with some of the sections in the draft. There are some sections that have a few points or that have not been started yet. I think that the ones that have content are great so far.

-The content overall is informative and I do not see bias or a persuasive attitude.

Sources & References
-All of the content is backed up by sources and have a citation in the text.

-The content reflects the sources well, without copying the original content. The content shows that the writer is informed and is able to interpret the information.

-The sources are current and discuss the topic well. The sources have valuable information related to the microbe.

-I am unsure how to find out if the authors are minorities or how to do that.

-I am unsure why there are a couple sources listed twice in the bibliography and if this has affected your citations in your article or not.

-All of the links work

Organization
- I hadn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the text. The text is concise and easy to read.

- I think the organization of the headings could be arranged differently to flow better. I think that the sections are all important and related to the topic, but could be placed in an order that flows better.

Images & Media
-There is a "potential" image in the text, under the section "climate change." The image looks like it relates to genomics and organization of organisms.

-I think an explanation would be good to add and to why it is important to the topic. Not much information is available to evaluate.

Overall Impressions
-The content has improved from the original article, although there is important information in the original article that provided genomics and background information

-The strenghts include the different sections and topics that will be touched on in the article that are not represented in the original.

-The content can be improved by being filled out more and elabored on and possibly organizing the content differently