User:Hsaeedm/Delftia lacustris/Zzubair99 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? (provide username) Hsaeedm
Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hsaeedm/Delftia lacustris

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Given the species and sources, I think the lead encompasses information that is currently available.
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? No, but it does briefly state the things that become the major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I do not believe so. The sections could definitely be expanded more with detail, but there is no information that is only mentioned once or not explained at all.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation

The lead (introduction) is concise and simple, but it does need a little bit of editing based on sentence structure.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content added up-to-date? As far as I know, yes, the content is current and does not exclude any critical information.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As far as I know, the content is current and does not/should not be missing any critical information based on the links used that we have previously read and annotated. All the content is relevant to D. lacustris and its characteristics.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I believe so. Since D. lacustris is not well known, this article will definitely bring about awareness and spread knowledge.

Content evaluation

The content describes general information about D. lacustris in a brief manner. The content can use some background information to properly introduce each section though, especially for the audience who is affiliated with microbiology.

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, but some sections can be reworded for conciseness even if they become condensed and shorter.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation

There are some grammatical errors that should be fixed in order for the article to read better. It is organized and thus flows accordingly, but it will flow well once the minor errors are fixed. Also, there are multiple places where the tense changes, for example some sentences are written in the past tense; these should be rewritten to have present tense throughout the article for the sake of uniformity and tone.

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, all the subtopics refer to the sources according to the research they cover.
Are the sources current? Yes.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the authors are diverse (based on their names). I believe they do include marginalized individuals because of the abundance of East-Asian authors, not necessarily from East-Asia, they can be Asian researchers based in USA as well.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

The sources are formatted properly and the content is cited too. There is diversity from which the content is taken from, and the sources vary in what they cover too.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall, yes, but there are some grammatical errors that need fixing. Additionally, there are sentences that can be rewritten for clarity and condensation, but they are not grammatically incorrect. As stated before, past-tense sentences should be changed to follow the present-tense format.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling errors, but there are a few grammatical errors (minor for the most part). These mostly relate to being concise and being rewritten for simplicity.
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 based on subtopics that contribute to information about D. lacustris.

Organization evaluation

As stated above, the article is organized well, but needs minor edits not about the content but about the grammar. It also can use more descriptive information about the characteristics of D. lacustris before diving into the specific research and utilizations.

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 used.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? None used.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? None used.

Images and media evaluation

Not applicable.

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? I am not sure, but I do not see any sources about things other than D. lacustris.
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, I believe so that the information and sources are current and do not leave anything important out.
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? Yes, the article is organized, but it is in a simpler format than the actual published articles. This is not a bad thing because this article is more for general information purposes on the internet rather than a scholarly article about new research findings.
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

New Article Evaluation

The article discusses a variety of fields of information that encompass D. lacustris. The article could use other links to similar pages for more outreach and perhaps the secondary sources as well, but the sources are exhaustive.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe the article satisfactorily provides the surface level information about D. lacustris, complying with Wikipedia and what readers expect when they go on Wikipedia to quickly learn about a subject.
What are the strengths of the content added? It is to the point and brief, and covers different fields. relating to how D. lacustris can be used and how it acts in environments.
How can the content added be improved? The article can be improved by fixing the grammatical errors and condensing a few sentences for simplicity.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article provides good information and summarizes the current data available about D. lacustris. It is a short article, but that is not a bad thing. The article is organized according to the research available about D. lacustris in each field in the sub-topics. It can be edited for better understanding, though.