User:Weber.cdeyoung/Pseudomonas quinolone signal/Avaloowhoo Peer Review

General info
Akirrowe, Brodietaytay, Landonsevere, Weber.cdeyoung
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Weber.cdeyoung/Pseudomonas quinolone signal
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * - The paragraphs in the article are relevant to the topic. Not only does it cover quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa but it also goes more into the details of how.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * - The article is neutral. The authors are simply stating the facts relating to the bacteria.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * - The article is dedicated to the Pseudomonas Quinolone Signal. I see a natural flow of explaining the bacteria involved, and what it looks like.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * - From what I can tell, the links work, and the sources support the claims of the article.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * - I would recommend putting more sources in for paragraph 2. I appreciate how many diverse references there are for paragraph 1, but since they are out of date, they are not reliable. They appear to be neutral sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * - Most of the sources are out of date. These need to be updated within the past 5 year range.