User:Yuwingjane/Mesorhizobium mediterraneum/GreyCarlsen 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): Yuwingjane
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Mesorhizobium mediterraneum

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: no
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: mostly, no information is given about the organism's impacts on agriculture (which makes up most of the article) in the lead, but given the relatively short length of the article, I am not sure it is needed.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: no
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: no

Lead evaluation: The lead (first paragraph) is short and informative, but doesn't reflect the agricultural elements of the article. But considering the short length of the article, I don't think much needs to be changed to the lead.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?: yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?: yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: all content present is appropriate. I think morphological information would help diversify the article, but that's just my opinion.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: no

Content evaluation: Present content is great, but a bit more diversity would help strengthen the article.

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
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: To speak is to argue.

Tone and balance evaluation: The writing on its own is relatively unbiased.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: oh yeah, primary literature out the wazoo
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: yes
• Are the sources current?: yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: at a glance, yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?: yes

Sources and references evaluation: This section is very strong. I do find it strange that each source is only used once though.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: no (it looks like some edits have been made by others to correct this though)
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: again, most of the added info relates to one topic

Organization evaluation: By definition, the article is organized, but only because one topic exists. Information within this topic does flow well though from point to point.

Images and Media (N/A)

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 (N/A)

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, definitly
• What are the strengths of the content added?: added content is strong and supported by several sources. It is also concise and easy to read.
• How can the content added be improved?: again, other topics relating to the organism would help strengthen the article, if they exist.