User:Vkberndt/Bonnie Bassler/Tbronson16 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Vkberndt, Aeburtner
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vkberndt/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
The existing Lead seems to cover everything in the article in a manner that is both brief and descriptive. I think the Lead is fine as it is!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content seems up-to-date, as the oldest reference was published in 2002.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It does not appear that any content is missing or irrelevant.

Content evaluation
The added content definitely strengthens the article, which was already pretty thorough to begin with. The section describing the subject's research will be a great addition to the existing article, which lacks details about the subject's research focuses.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints are neither overrepresented nor underrepresented. All information is conveyed appropriately.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is professional and unbiased throughout the added content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All content seems to be backed up be reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The references appear to accurately reflect the literature available on the subject.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current. The oldest source is only from 2002.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links appear to work.

Sources and references evaluation
The existing article already lists numerous references and related works. The added references strengthen the article and appear to be good sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise and very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There do not appear to be any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down into appropriate sections.

Organization evaluation
The article already seems to be organized appropriately. Adding the section on the subject's research was a good idea; this will make the article more complete.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images currently included with the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Pictures, such as a current photo of the subject or a photo of the bacteria from the subject's research, may make the article a little more visually appealing.

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content has greatly contributed to the overall quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very descriptive without being excessive.
 * How can the content added be improved? Images would make the article more visually appealing to the reader.

Overall evaluation
This is a great contribution overall! The section on the subject's research makes the already thorough article more complete. In the final draft, you may be able to delete the section called "Bassler's Research."