User:Colettemort/Aerotaxis/Brysonbaggs 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Colette mort

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colettemort/Aerotaxis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

There is a lead section present, and it has been updated by my peers
The lead does contain a short, descriptive introductory sentence
The article so far does not contain any subsections, and the lead does not discuss what potential subsections that they wish to discuss in their article.
It is hard to say if what they have written is the lead or if they are trying to make a specific subsection. The article itself is not constructed in a way to tell the difference between subsections and the lead.
The lead is not too short, but it also isn’t overly detailed

Content:

The content contained in the material present is relevant to the topic.
The oldest article is from 1999, I would say this is still relevant information, the other articles are from more recent years.
I would definitely improve the division of the article, start by making subsections that are relevant to your topic, building upon what you already have.
Microbiology is an ever evolving field of study, so this topic will enhance the representation of microbiology on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance:

The content that has been added up to this point is neutral and is not one sided.
It does not appear to have any claims that are heavily biased at this time.
The viewpoints here are not over represented nor underrepresented at this time.
There are no attempts to persuade noted in this article.

Sources and References:

The sources that have been used up to this point seem to be reliable, quality references that are up to date with current events.
The links to the article work.

Organization:

The content is a little choppy and needs some work to flow better.
Consistency in capitalization of the words, such as “Oxygen”,is not the same in all sentences, and could be changed to either lowercase or capitalized to improve flow and appearance.

Images and Media:

There are not images or media present in this article

New articles:

The article contains the minimum number of required sources.
This list of sources could be improved in number to provide more information about the topic.
There is not a solid layout to the article at this time, and is not very comparable to similar articles.
This article is only links to research papers and articles in their reference sections and is not linked to from other articles.

Overall impressions:

There could definitely be more content added to make this article better. This article is in the very beginning stages but needs to have a better structure to make reading and finding information easier. The information that has been shared up to this point is goo information but needs further details.