User:Eryan99/Bathypterois/Angelllllmoore Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Eryan99
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Bathypterois
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
- 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? No
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, straight to the point, and easy to read!
Lead evaluation: Great! This section is as exactly as it should be: clear and concise.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, there is a list of all of the species within the genus.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Relatively so! Pretty new data for a 2012 source.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it would be good to describe what the genus is and what other creatures are closely related.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but this does not apply here.
Content evaluation: Awesome! I would encourage to just add some more descriptive information of what characteristics the species belonging to the genus have.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]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? No.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Tone and balance evaluation: 10/10 great!
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all content comes from one reliable fish database.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
- Are the sources current? Yes, relatively so!
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!
Sources and references evaluation: Sourcing is great!
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, almost to a fault.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!
Organization evaluation: Wonderful!
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, I found this to be a highlight to the page!
- Are images well-captioned? Yes!
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I do not see sourcing for the images listed in the references tab.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes!
Images and media evaluation: Love the pictures; they are super helpful. I could not find sourcing to the photos included, however.
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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? No.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Only one source is listed, but it accurately describes the information. I think sourcing will become more thorough with additional references.
- 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? Yes.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.
New Article Evaluation: Moving forward, add more sourcing!
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!
- What are the strengths of the content added? Very concise and easy to understand! Photos are a huge plus!
- How can the content added be improved? Just beefing up the description of common characteristics/ecology/biology of the genus.