User:Kuzey Gunesli/Mycoremediation/Joq Oliver 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?

Kuzey Gunesli

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kuzey Gunesli/Mycoremediation
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Mycoremediation

Evaluate the drafted changes

First good work on fixing some of the sentence structure, grammar and adding links to other wiki pages, very useful. 11 February 2021

I see you have added some citations to the actual as well to previous work that was not sourced, and Good work on improving the formatting of the article.

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

NO,

It is unnecessary for the Organic pollutants to section. It already exists in the main area, and the author is just editing it and expanding on the topic.

The Viability in Extreme Environments that the author is working on is original and should be added to the Lead section and TOC

Working on the Organic pollutants section was the right choice; it is one of the article's weaker parts, and the info you have added is informative.

The paragraph in the organic pollutants section that starts with "Different fungi species can degrade crude oil" is new information relevant to the section. It is well linked to other wiki articles.

Suppose I can suggest an idea to produce another source for the paragraph since it relies heavily on the same article.

The arctic used is Credible and up-to-date, published in 2014, but an additional reference would support your argument/claims.

The Viability in Extreme Environments Section is good Addition to the article, well Referenced from multiple sources, its new and original content keeps the Wikipedia page up to date.

Added wiki links to "Cryptococcus gilvescens, Cryptococcus victoriae, Pichia carribbica and Leucosporidium creatinivorum" would be a great addition.

In my first read-through, I found it a bit different to get through and understand fully. I'm am no expert on this topic.

The paragraph is packed with information, and expanding on the topic such as ("ATP production" and "nutrient transportation disruption caused by freeze-thaw cycles") might help the readers comprehension of this section

There is a clear neutral tone in your work. Show no particular bias.

Keep up the excellent work!

I enjoy that you took your time to find interesting information and not just get as many words down as possible. The writing is good. Just keep in mind that someone with little to no background can be reading the page and try your best to simplify the more complicated aspects.