User:ColbyRee/Phacellophora camtschatica/Calynneweewie 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) colbyree
• Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ColbyRee/Phacellophora camtschatica

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? Yes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It includes the first two major sections, but does not include the following three.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is fairly concise while also being somewhat lay language for a general description.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? There are a few old sources, but there are more current (2000's) sources.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

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? The taxonomy could be a little thicker.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. There are 11 sources, most of which are peer reviewed.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources added a LOT of content to this wiki.
• Are the sources current? Some are, the most current is 2012.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well written and easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were very few to no grammatical errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There were no images.
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only

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?

New Article Evaluation

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is much more complete!
• What are the strengths of the content added? The additional content gives a great amount of detail about the jellyfish which was previously nonexistent.
• How can the content added be improved? The order of the sections could be from more general to specific topics. Pictures could be helpful, maybe compare it to a pic of a fried egg. Great job!