User:Yuwingjane/Mesorhizobium mediterraneum/RaisaMicroEcology 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? Yuwingjane
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mesorhizobium mediterraneum

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? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation:
'''I think your lead is great! I don't think it includes a description or summary of your article's major sections, but I don't think that is necessary given you do talk about a lot of relevant information in the paragraphs to come, that have been separated very eloquently by topic.'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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.

Content evaluation
I am quite impressed by the content of your article and your attention to detail!

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * 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? no

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the article manages to maintain a neutral tone and only stick to factual information about the microbe in question.

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? no
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
'''The sources are reliable and reflect the information that is required to build this article. They are not entirely current or up-to-date, but it is difficult to find new literature with these very-specific microbes! Overall, a great job.'''

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? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
As mentioned before, I really enjoyed the fact that your paragraphs are sectioned so that they reflect a different aspect of your microbe.

Images and Media
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
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? I'm not sure if it represents ALL available literature since I haven't looked into that, but I do think this is a very thorough job with lots of citations.
 * 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.

New Article Evaluation
The article is thorough in its job of linking other articles to make the understanding of this article much easier.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content truly provides a neutral, fact-based set of information about the bacterium in question.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add headings for each section for your paragraphs.

Overall evaluation
'''Great article! Very thorough and detailed job!'''