User talk:Josie1010/Streptomyces/Brodyq4 Peer Review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Josie1010 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josie1010/Streptomyces Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No

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? Yes

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there are strains brought up in the lead that are not talked about again.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise to the topic and not too detailed

Lead evaluation B

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, most of the main content about Streptomyces is present

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it goes in great detail about common underrepresented strains related to Streptomyces and the links to further information on those similar diseases.

Content evaluation A

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? The information in the lead by previous authors is underrepresented, but only for a few strains

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. only adds new information not discussed yet in the article

Tone and balance evaluation B

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 it is a solid peer-reviewed article on the topic

Are the sources current? Yes 2019

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the source has several cites and a declaration of no conflict of interest

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation A

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but could use a little more about the topic

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? No

Organization evaluation C

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No

Are images well-captioned? None present

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? None present

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? None present

Images and media evaluation NEED ASSISTANCE

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (DOES NOT APPLY)

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 Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes but it could use more, it's a great point for new information on the topic but lacks the evidence and details to confirm this is true

What are the strengths of the content added? New Information that can expand upon other sources

How can the content added be improved? Discussing more about it

Overall evaluation B