User:Countryscientist/Leuconostoc mesenteroides/Wiskirchensl 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? (CountryScientist)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Leuconostoc mesenteroides

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it seems to me that it does.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, talks about what this type of bacterial species is.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part yes, they just didn't mention anything about taxonomy (which isn't a huge topic).
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I think everything mentioned in the lead is present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I do think that the lead is a little over detailed when describing the bacteria's characteristics. It is repeated in the characteristics section.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, very relevant. Each subsection listed talks in depth about a different topic related to the bacteria.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Reference number 3, that is referenced quite a bit is from over 22 years ago. But overall, it's pretty up to date but could be better.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think there is any content that is missing but I don't think the taxonomy is maybe necessary but it's not bad to have.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, very neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, not really.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe the health risk section is a little underrepresented. What are some symptoms of someone how has this bacterial infection?
• 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, it is sited very well throughout the entire article.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, very thorough
• Are the sources current? Most of them are, one is a little old.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, no problem accessing the links

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very easy to read and follow.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not really.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, very well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- There is no images or media in this article.

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

For New Articles Only - Not a new article

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? Yes, I would say that is overall more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? More in depth look into each sub topic about the bacteria. It provides overall well-rounded information about the bacteria.
• How can the content added be improved? Maybe shorten the lead. May not need as much details since more of the information is repeated in the body of the article.