User:Prokarylotic Lover/Microbial toxin/Ckosiak Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• I am reviewing Prokarylotic Lover's article.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Prokarylotic Lover/sandbox

Lead

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise and describes what the article is going to be about. You could possibly include a little intro that you are going to be discussing detection methods because that is a large section, but I didn't see any mention of it in the lead. Other than that, it looks good.

Content

Content evaluation

There is a good variety of content on the topic. I like how you organized the detection methods into subcategories - that makes sense. You provide a lot of examples of the toxins which is good! It seems like a broad topic so these examples help. Perhaps you can also include how these toxins are made or if that is not really findable, how the toxins are processed?

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance evaluation

The content that is added is objective and neutral. This is clear when you show the downsides of SPATT and not just its advantages. You also mention the toxin effects on other organisms, not just humans which is good since its not biased. There is no show of persuasion.

Sources and References

Sources and references evaluation

I checked all the links in the sources section and they all lead to articles with no errors. There are a lot of sources which is good and they are relatively up to date. I would include more wikipedia links in the article to more wikipedia pages.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Organization evaluation

Overall, the information is well organized especially into the subsections. I noticed no grammar errors that stood out.

Images and Media

Images and media evaluation

There are no images but this is difficult to do, so instead you can include more links to more wikipedia articles.

For New Articles Only

New Article Evaluation

This is an already existing article, but you are adding a lot of new information that is related to the topic so I think you're set for this part.

Overall impressions

Overall evaluation

Overall I like how you split up the research because it is a broad topic! It truly shows you did a lot of research about each subtopic. I would potentially add maybe how these toxins are made, but if that is too broad maybe how it is processed? In general though I think you have a lot of good info and don't need too much more additions.