User:Micromeech/Sulfur metabolism/Scienceislife22 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Sulfur Metabolism edited by Micromeech.

Link to draft you're reviewing: Sulfur metabolism - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Sulfur metabolism - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Before I start, there is no draft in the Sandbox. I am not sure if you are editing directly on the Article's page. If you are, you have to go to the Wikiedu page and copy the article itself into the Sandbox draft page and edit there. Once your article is finished and ready to be published, that is when you post it onto the official article site.

Lead

The lead is well written. Has a neutral tone and good descriptive information on the topic as well. The lead sentence is appropriate. It is concise and clear. It also a good number of hyperlinks which is good for vocabulary understanding. All information presented in the lead is present in other sections.

Content

Has a neutral tone and a good information. The sections are relevant to the topic and provides well written information that is displayed in a balanced way. There is no information that is over or underrepresented. My only comment would be to maybe put Sulfur Oxidizing Bacteria in its own section as well as the Sulfur Oxidizing Archaea. The information is important, and I believe this would make the article easier to understand. The sections have good headers as well. It's not entirely necessary but maybe adding a section talking about how increases or decreases in sulfur in the environment can impact sulfur metabolism. I believe it would add good information to the article.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and balanced. There are no biases towards a specific viewpoint in the text. All information is based on facts.

References

The references work and the information cited matches the articles as well. Citations include older and current information which indicates a well-researched article. The references work and are relevant to the topic.

Organization

The article is concise, clear, and an easy read. The sections could be properly divided. The subsection could be a section on its own. I did not see any grammatical errors in the text.

Images

They images go well with the topic. I am not sure, but if there is a sulfur metabolism cycle that is different between Archaea and Bacteria, maybe add a diagram of each one.

The article seems well researched and well executed in the writing in my opinion. Great job!