User:Msfoli/Glomeribacter gigasporarum/KPadavich 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? Msfoli
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Msfoli/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, this is a new article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, it defines the subject concisely and includes links for further understanding.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No major sections have been added yet.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, the Lead is all that is present so far.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It seems concise as it is now, if more is added to the article it may be beneficial to reformat it.

Lead evaluation

The Lead seems to summarize many defining characteristics of the topic well.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, as far as I know. The most recent reference is from 2004.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • It looks like a great start for the article, it may be helpful to break the topic into sections for enhanced readability.
• 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

The content so far is very descriptive. I suggest breaking the topic down into sections.

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 it seems factual and well backed.

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone and balance overall is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, scientific journals
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, if available try to find one from the 2010's
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The sources look to be very reliable, as the article grows it should include a few more sources.

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?
  • No

Organization evaluation

The writing so far is well written and descriptive. It could use sections later on.

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?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

No images

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?
• 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I think your Lead is very well written and describes the topic well. It could use and image if available. Titled categories could be added to increase digestibility and provide in-depth content. The references are high quality. Overall it looks like a great start to the article.