User talk:FelicitasSchneider/Lithoautotroph/BaileyLin Peer Review

Bailey's Peer Review
The lead section was well written and easy to understand. It did a good job of drawing me into the article and making me want to read more. For the most part, the lead reflected the most important information that about the topic, but I think maybe including a preview to the section on "Acid mine drainage" would be nice. I liked that there were a lot of links in the lead, and the figure is colorful and eye catching. There was an appropriate amount of detail for a lead section, and it did not seem to be missing anything or to have redundant information. I liked the explanation of the Greek roots of the word "lithotroph".

The structure of the article was clear, and there were two defined sections for "Geological processes" and "Acid mine drainage". The addition of a "See also" section would improve the quality of the article and give readers an easier way to find related topics, in case they are interested. However, the differences between the two sections was very clear, and there was a clear reasoning for their placements in the article. I do not think the sections would need to be rearranged at all, as the article flows fairly well.

The lengths of each section are equal to their importance to the article's subject. They are both of equal length and both seem to be of equal importance to the article. None of the sections in the article seem unnecessary, and the article stays on topic. The article accurately reflects all perspectives that are represented in published literature, and there do not seem to be any significant viewpoints missing. The article does not draw conclusions and does not attempt to sway readers toward any particular point of view. It is a neutral article with balanced subject coverage.

The author presented a very neutral point of view, and I could not have guessed their perspective just by reading the article. All of the words and phrases used were neutral, and there were no uses of phrases such as "I think" or "X is better than Y". The article does not focus too much on any negative or positive information, and it is a clear reflection of all aspects of the topic. The tone throughout the article was neutral.

The statements in this article are connected to reliable sources, and all sources are used for the information presented in the article. The article does not rely too heavily on any one point of view. All of the statements in the article could be linked back to the sources, and the information was presented fairly and accurately.

BaileyLin (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)