User:Liambuirs/Tritrophic interactions in plant defense/Annawesthaver4340 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? Liambuirs
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Liambuirs/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- NOTE: The lead is not in his sandbox but it is in the original article (has since been updated by Liam) which may be found here: Tritrophic interactions in plant defense
- 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?
- Yes- the lead does a good job at summarizing the mechanisms that facilitate tritrophic interactions (chemical, morphological etc.). These points are then expanded upon in the following sections
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It's fairly wordy in some places, could benefit from a bit of pruning.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Overall, a strong lead. It is a little wordy in some places, but still does a great job providing an overview of what the topic is and what the sections below will cover. The second paragraph of the lead could use a couple more references to help support the information included.
Content
[edit]NOTE: This evaluation is now for the portions of the article that are in Liam's sandbox, not the official article
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- For the most part- there is one article from 1997, but that is the source of basic info on TTI, so I would say that it is ok to use an older source in this article
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yep
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Nope
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Not that I can see
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- Nope
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Keep up that neutral tone!
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- A few more sources would make all of your sections a bit stronger. Don't be afraid to site multiple sources for one sentence, doing so will tell the reader that what you are saying is well-researched and supported by MULTIPLE (reputable!) sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I'd say so- you have sources that cover the biological control aspect of this topic, as well as the chemistry, and ecology included in this subject. It would be nice to see at least one more source for each of these aspects, just so that you can make sure that what you are writing accurately reflects current research in that area
- Are the sources current?
- Yep
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- There aren't many links to check- maybe reformat the citations with links so that people don't have to cut & copy to find the original article
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources you have at the moment look good, it would just be good to see a few more.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Some of your sentences are a bit wordy, so just be mindful of sentence length when you go back to do your final edits. Also, rather than putting definitions in parenthesis, you could just convert the word being defined into a link which would take the reader to another wiki page that explains the term. For example "herbivore natural enemies (pest killing organisms)" ---> "natural enemies". This is less wordy and may help readers find more resources to better understand the topic at hand
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not really- a couple run-on sentences
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yep
Organization evaluation
[edit]Overall, this sandbox is well-written and organized.
Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]N/A
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?
- 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
[edit]N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]This article is off to a really strong start. It is well-organized, well-written, and supported by peer-reviewed literature. My two big requests would be that you find some more references and edit your current references to include easily-accessed links. Best of luck!