User:Vide351/Methylobacterium extorquens/GreyCarlsen 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): Vide351
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vide351/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:

Lead evaluation: The lead is strong, but does not reference the last section of the article.
 * 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, mostly. the "other organisms" section is not referred to in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: no

Content
Guiding questions:

Content evaluation: The present content seems well supported, is written well, and covers a variety of topics relating to the organism.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Tone and balance evaluation: Article seems relatively unbiased, with a neutral tone
 * Is the content added neutral?: yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: to speak is to argue. However, this article seems relatively unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Sources and references evaluation: The sources for the article are fine, however the major problem with this section is that most of the sources are listed 2, 3, and even 4 times. Each should only appear once.
 * 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?: there are likely many more sources of information on this organism, however the current number of sources (6) is ok.
 * Are the sources current?: yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: at a glance, yes. the authors come from institutions from the USA, France, Austria, and Switzerland.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: yes

Organization
Guiding questions:

Organization evaluation: Overall, the article is very welly organized, easy to read, and only contains minor grammatical errors.
 * 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?: Only minor grammatical errors are present and are spare. Some abbreviations are included without a description.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: yes

Images and Media (N/A)
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: absolutely
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: the added content is supported by primary literature and covers a variety of topics regarding the organism.
 * How can the content added be improved?: A bit more information could be added to the "chemical usage" section. If additional info cannot be found, consider incorporating it into the lead.