User:Pinguicula02/Tidal marsh/Teddieursa 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)
  • Pinguicula02
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Pinguicula02/Tidal marsh

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No, new information about vegetation and restoration have not been added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the first sentence is a description of tidal marshes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes except it does not include the two new sections about vegetation and restoration
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • It includes information about tidal marsh cycles which is not included anywhere else in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is overall concise and a good introduction. However, I think it goes into too much detail about the marsh cycles considering it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Lead evaluation

Solid lead with some detailed information about cycles which are not mentioned in the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, I thought the content added was a good and interesting addition.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • I believe so.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No, but I think it would be nice to add a section about the animals which live in this habitat.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No

Content evaluation

I liked the topics you chose to add to the article. I think it would be interesting if you could add a section about the animals that live in this habitat since the article mentions the habitat's biodiversity.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Not at all
• 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

I didn't notice any problems with the tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • yes, I believe so
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, many of the sources are from the last two years
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • It's hard to tell but I did see some female writers being cited.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • This link didn't work for me for some reason: "THE PACE OF ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTED SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA MARSHES"

Sources and references evaluation

Nice use of sources. You should double check the links to make sure they all work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • I thought the new content was well-written
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I couldn't find any errors
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

Organization evaluation

I thought the organization was very good.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • I think the article could benefit from the addition of more images. It might be nice to see some in the "types" section to give the reader a visual referenece.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • I believe so
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

Images and media evaluation

The media is used well, but the article could benefit from some additional images.

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?
  • Yes definitely. I like that you added onto the restoration section and updated it with new info.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I think your additions helped provide a better picture of all the elements of tidal marshes.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • You could add an animals section, edit the lead to include the new sections/ info, fix the links, and add more images.

Overall evaluation

Nice job!