User:R33nayl3aves/Singletary Lake/Freshwater598 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? R33nayl3aves
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:R33nayl3aves/Singletary Lake

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't think that it has been updated.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic, the fish population in relation to the Singletary Lake
• Is the content added up-to-date? Some are a couple years old and one is 1980 I think.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I know of, some of the links (the last 2) don't lead to the direct subject that was looked up, it was just the general site.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes the original article is short and does not include the fish species.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral
• 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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is backed up by reliable secondary source info
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? The NC State website is updated often (I would assume) and the other articles that can be views are from 2016 and 1980.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and no, 2 authors are repeated twice
• Check a few links. Do they work? All but the last 2, they just bring you up to the general website.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well written, clear, and concise.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I see (I would definitely double check because I am not good at grammar or spelling).
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized, the charts/tables are labeled with a title that reflects the contents.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added has improved the overall quality of the original article is because the fish and amphibian information was not originally included.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of these additions is that it provides readers with knowledgeable information about the animals that live there.
• How can the content added be improved? The content added can be imporved by fixing the last two sources, and maybe add a few more paragraphs at the beginning.