User:Sendi Mejia/Senna spectabilis/Pragya1999 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]- Sendi Mejia, Spendlet, Mornette23
- User:Sendi Mejia/Senna spectabilis
- Senna spectabilis
Lead
[edit]There is no content in the sandbox draft, so I'll be reviewing the content in the article. The lead is not a complete paragraph and just says what plant the article is about and what family it's from. It needs more details and a thesis on what the article will be about, and summarize the content and sections of the article. The lead needs to be more descriptive.
Content
[edit]The only content added is a section on taxonomy. However, I feel it's somewhat irrelevant and unnecessary. You are here to talk about a single plant species, Senna spectabilis, so you don't need to add the taxonomy of all other plants it's related to. Instead, add more descriptive, detailed information about the plant, like it's origin, where it's grown, it's appearance and features, what it's used for, etc. The source used for the content is from 2005, but it could be more recent if you're looking for more accuracy.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The content added so far is neutral and not biased. There are no over- or underrepresented viewpoints and the content is not persuasive.
Sources and References
[edit]None of the sources, references, or links work or open. Content needs to be replaced with new, reliable content with accurate sources. The sources don't seem to be current.
Organization
[edit]The content added so is well-written and easy to read. However, it could be made more clear and concise in some areas, and better organized. More sections are needed with more, better content, to cover major points of the topic. There don't seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors.
Images and Media
[edit]There is an already existing image posted on the article by the user who created the article. More images of the plant need to be added that are more descriptive of its features, like more close-up shots of the plant's leaves, flowers, stem, venation, roots, seeds, etc.
Overall impressions
[edit]The content added hasn't really improved the quality of the article and does not make the article more complete. The article still needs a lot of work and content before it's more complete.