User:Ptero-ADH/Isoetes/Epezzuto 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) Ptero-ADH
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ptero-ADH/sandbox?

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• 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 but does include a "Contents" box with links to the different sections of the paper. Author could add their added section of "Reproduction" to the contents box.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation

Lead is good - author did not add anything to it but does not need to be added to. Maybe could add a brief description of what is to come, otherwise would add "Reproduction" section to the contents box.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Somewhat
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing content in second paragraph under Ecology section. Not sure if Author is not finished or forgot to add in.
• 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

Overall content is good - especially dealing with Isoetes reproductive mechanisms. There is some content missing under Ecology and I believe is missing some references / citations (see below)

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Under Description - yes. Under ecology - I would change tone a bit. It sounds like you are arguing a bit here with phrases like : "This fact cannot be overlooked" I am a bit unsure how necessary it is to reiterate to the reader a couple of times that there are no studies at all on Isoetes reproduction, but rather stick more to what we do know. However, I am not completely sure because the section is not 100% done.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A bit in that there are "no studies"
• 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? A bit with the second paragraph of ecology section

Tone and balance evaluation

I think tone is perfect in first part but lacking a bit in second part. Change phrasing and stick more to what you can tell the reader. It may be true that there are few studies, but try to back that up somehow instead of arguing it.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. What i noticed: add authors to reference 2, check dates on ref. 4,
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, I believe so.
• Are the sources current? Not necessarily -half of sources date back to before 1940 which is fine because I believe it is the original research about isoetes reproduction.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? From what I can see, yes, although I do not know for sure.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked 5 of them and they all worked.

Sources and references evaluation

So far so good - I would check the citations of refs 2 and 4. I would also add some references to the ecology section.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very well written
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes it is

Organization evaluation

Overall, very well-organized and well-written. Easy to understand and clear.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
• Are images well-captioned? Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation

Overall Figure looks good and caption makes it easy to follow. Looks like it was cited correctly.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. N/A

• 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, article was lacking a reproduction section and this clearly adds to article's completeness.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Reproduction is very well explained and has many sources backing it up.
• How can the content added be improved? Add references./more content to the ecology section of the article. Needs to be finished and show more evidence if possible.

Overall evaluation

Overall, article draft was good and I was impressed. Figure was great and so was the writing. Needs to be finished but other than that very good.