:: Thanks again for your suggestions and edits. As I understand it, the criteria (see WP:GA?) and process for selecting good articles are a bit more flexible than featured articles, and any editor can carry out the review. To address the previous peer review:  
 ::* I went through and tagged 3 of the 4 articles tagged as registration warnings by checklinks with the subscription required template. I also checked the redirects, and they are all open (although the national academies requires registration), and include a link to PLoS via the DOI resolver. I figured that was ok, but I can replace the url with a direct link if necessary. 
 ::* I've tried to bracket some sections (like bioinformatics) that were largely based upon one or two review articles with citations at the beginning and end of paragraphs as suggested. Again, I'm new here, so if its necessary to increase the citation density it'd be no undue burden to do so. If you could point to a passage or two so that I know what you mean, it'd be a help. 
 ::* I expanded the end of the biofuel section a bit to specifically mention the leafcutter ant fungus garden metagenome, with links out to the larger system and its mutualism. 
 ::I hope I didn't overlook any. I probably should have explicitly replied on the PR, sorry if that was poor form.