User:Ckosiak/Sporosarcina pasteurii/Lberkowicz 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?
  • Ckosiak
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Sporosarcina pasteurii

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, it clearly explains what the organism is and what makes it unique.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It does include a brief description of most of the major sections in the article. Possibly adding a comment about the bacteria being gram positive could cover the Physiology section in the article that seems unrepresented
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise and includes the information necessary for a reader to know what the article covers.

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

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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, they are all from reliable journals or organizations.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes. The content is well written and is very easy to follow.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • "Teichoic acid" may be misspelled as "techoic acid" in the middle of the Applications with MICP section.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the content is well organized. The sections added cover the important aspects of this organism.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • N/A
• Are images well-captioned?
  • N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • N/A

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?
  • N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • N/A
• 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?
  • N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The content has greatly improved from the original version. It includes a lot more detail and has more information about the organism as a whole.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • There is a lot of information that has been added, and all of it is very detailed and cited well. All of the added citations are recent and reliable, and the writing explains all of this information thoroughly. It is organized very cleanly and references clarifying information whenever necessary.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • A link to the alkaliphile page could be added in the Physiology section. Similarly, more links to other pages could be added, but aren't totally necessary. Also, for the specific examples at the end of the article, bullets can be used to list them so they stand out more.