User:Chef Long Johns/Tamoya haplonema/Skeuwter 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?

(provide username) Chef Long Johns (love the username)

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Chef%20Long%20Johns/Tamoya_haplonema?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Current article doesn't exist.

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

The lead reflects the new information that was added, although it is a bit short.
The lead does include a good introduction sentence, but there is an error Tamoya is a genus not a family.
The lead does include information on all of the major sections, and it does have good information.
The lead does include information that is not in other parts of the article. (you briefly talked about the morphology, maybe you could make a larger section talking about that?)
The lead is very concise, and is informative, but I believe it is too short.

Content

The content that was added was relevant and to date.
I believe that you are missing some content, all of the sections feel pretty short, and there are some topics that I believe you good to add. You could talk about the jellies life cycle and morphology.

Tone and Balance

The information is concise and neutral, there isn't any bias.

Sources and References

All the information that was added was backed by reliable sources, and the information in the article is accurate to what the sources say.
The sources used are thorough and to date.
The sources are good and can all be accessed via the links, although it believe that this article doesn't meet the assignments source requirements.

Organization

The content that was added was concise, well written, and easy to read. Good job.
I wasn't able to find any major spelling or grammatical errors, and all of the topic sections were organized well.

Overall impressions

I believe that this is a great start, but I believe that this article is missing quite a bit of information. There are lots of areas where you could added information, but I am glad you talk about how this jellyfish interacts with humans, as well as how to treat stings from the jelly. I also think that your article would benefit from adding links, like this one of the genus the jelly fish is in, Tamoya. You can add links by clicking on the chain link next to the cite button. Overall, you did a good job just make sure to get a couple more sources, and to add a bit more to the lead.