User:Mattdwill97/Hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis/Jnitsch 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?

Julia is reviewing Matthew's Chemosynthesis article

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattdwill97/Hydrogen_sulfide_chemosynthesis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

(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.)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I know that this was not part of the article that you added, but the original lead to the article contains a mention about giant tubeworms that seems out of place. The rest of the lead deals specifically with the chemical reaction. Maybe you could move the mention of tubeworms elsewhere? Like in your last section maybe.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

None of the claims appear to be biased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I believe that the overall viewpoint is quite balanced. Though it might be nice to have a couple of the points elaborated on.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

You don't have any of your citations as links yet so I wasn't able to check to see if they work or if they support what you claimed in your article. If you need help figuring out how to link your citations, let me know! I had to mess around with it for a while before I figured it out.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Your sources all appear to be from reliable publishers/journals. They are all creditable and peer reviewed.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

The sources are all current.

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article?

I believe it has. I especially enjoy that you went more in depth into how the reaction actually generates ATP for the organism. It makes the whole process more meaningful to know what the end product is.

What are the strengths of the content added?

I really enjoy that everything you added is written in a concise, easily understandable manner. I believe that someone without a chemistry or biochemistry background would be able to follow what you wrote.

How can the content added be improved?

I do believe that there are a few points that you could elaborate on. You never describe what an oxidation reaction is in your first section you added. People accessing this article may not have a chemistry background and may not be familiar with redox reactions. You also mention in your second section a handful of organisms that are capable of hydrogen sulfide chemosynthesis but it may be interesting if you were able to describe these species a bit more and if there are any hypotheses on why these organisms perform this process.