User talk:Chrishansen4/Photoheterotroph

Peer Review
The Lead

The lead has a great introduction of the topic of photoheterotrophs but doesn't actually summarize what is present in the article. The research section metabolism section ecology section and flowchart should be referenced in the lead.

The sources/links

The sources are really great and there are many citations that are from good sources and the links seem to work quite well.

The organization

I really like the organization there are lots of good titles for sections and the subheadings in the ecology section is quite useful. I might move the flowchart up on the page so that it is visible earlier in the page.

Neutral?

The content seems quite neural well sourced and well balanced.

Strengths?

I really liked the detail added in the Wikipedia article. I think that there is a nice combination of mentioning specific microorganisms and discussing the general category of photoheterotrophs. The article really makes you feel like you understand the main ideas of the topic.

Room for improvement?

I would move the flowchart to earlier in the page and may add a few images in order to help people to understand some more examples of photoheterotrophs. The lead also needs to be fully updated to reflect the new article.

Caffeinatedmicrobe (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead: Accurately updated article lead to reflect the addition of an ecology and biogeochemical cycling section. Content: Added a wealth of relevant information about photoheterotroph ecology, impacts on carbon cycling, etc. Tone:Tone is neutral, relaying information rather than an opinion. Sources are appropriate and extensive. Organization: Organization is logical, all components make sense in their current location. A few extra sub headings under ecology may have been helpful. Images and Media: Adequate for the current article.

Overall: Well researched and put together addition to a wikipedia article. Gros04 (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)