User:AcademicTree2/Quercus lyrata/Hrd1221 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)  AcademicTree2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AcademicTree2/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated and info has been moved around to appropriate locations.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it describes the tree, family, genus, and species.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead touches on the major sections, but adding a little more info would be beneficial. Briefly describe distribution by saying the vastness of it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Good start to lead just needs a little more info and it would be concise.

Lead evaluation
Lead has a very good start to it, but it needs more info to briefly describe that other sections that are in the wikipedia page. The info that is currently there is a brief description of what is in the "description" section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. All content is relevant and helps add to the strength of the page.
 * 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
The content in this article provides a clear and neutral understanding of the topic. It gives a good overview about the topic and describes all the important details. It is all relevant and helps add to the relevance of other information that is provided throughout the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * 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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a neutral tone and provides information that is not biased any certain way. It does a very good job of not giving off any assumptions and sticks to information from reliable sources.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly, info under "conservation" should have a reference, and the info about the pericap in "description". This would help strengthen that information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
References used provide good support to the info that has been provided in the article. It helps add to the strength of the information, and the info is coming from a variety of sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Broken down nicely into appropriate sections and very easy to follow along.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Very few. Commas just need to be added in certain places. No spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the page has sections with info that helps describe the topic.

Organization evaluation
Organization of the page is well done. It is very easy to follow along with different topics and sections. Also has appropriate sections that are important to explaining the topic.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: No images added.


 * 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
No images added. Images that were already present help show the features of tree, help the reader understand the features, and the distribution.

For New Articles Only: This article had previous information.
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, it helps add to the description and complexity of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The description and distribution/habitat sections are very strong. Also, the content adds important info about the background of the overlap oak, and does a good job of describing the vastness of the distribution.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding info to the introduction would be the main focus. Also, there a few sentences at the end of the "humans" section that are short, and could be put together.

Overall evaluation
The overall page is very well done. My biggest suggestion is adding info to the introduction to help give more of an overview of what the article is really about. The grammar and spelling is good other than a few minor things like commas. The description does a very good job of giving an overview of the tree as a whole.