User:Nvega004/Biological specificity/Lfay002 Peer Review

Nvega004

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)
• Nvega004
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Nvega004/Biological specificity

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?

Lead evaluation

Excellent lead. Followed the original entry and was specific of the species you were referring to.

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?

Content evaluation

The topic is relevant and his content was up to date.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

This entry had a good flow and was easy to follow

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content had references listed at the bottom, but I think that the sources / cite needs to be added to the end of each paragraph or sentence when paraphrasing

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?

Organization evaluation

The entry was well organized and broken up into sections by 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 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?

Overall evaluation:

This wiki entry/edit was excellent. Well written, easy to follow and flowed with content. You were specific on which species you were examining and didn’t deviate onto another topic. The only suggestion would be to cite after the paragraph, and link words or topics if its a subject in Wikipedia. For example: morphology (if its in wiki then highlight the word and click the link symbol at the top. This will allow the reader to click on morphology and take them to the page to read about this. Great job