User:Aesqueda1/Alberto Cardín/PlantLover51 Peer Review

'''Please see my peer review nots after each question. Thanks!'''

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).  Aesqueda1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Alberto Cardín

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? NOT THAT I CAN TELL.
 * 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? YES BUT BRIEFLY. MORE DETAIL COULD BE ADDED.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? NO
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? CONCISE BUT ALOST TOO BRIEF.

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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW SOURCES BUT THEY ARE CITED WELL IN THE INFORMATION THAT IS INCLUDED.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? IT SEEMS WELL BALANCED. BRIEF BUT NOT LEANING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO OT DOES NOT.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? YES THEY ARE
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? NOT REALLY, ONLY THREE,
 * Are the sources current? NOT VERY. COULD BE IMPROVED IF AVAILABLE
 * Check a few links. Do they work? YES THEY DO.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? SIMPLE BECAUSE NOT A LOT OF INFORMATION. WELL ORGANIZED AND DIRECT.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? NOT THAT I FOUND.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? YES IT IS BROKEN DOWN INTO RELEVANT SUB CATEGORIES

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? YES. LIMITED THOUGH
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? YES
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NOT REALLY, KIND OF BLAND.

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? A BIT MORE DETAIL
 * How can the content added be improved? BETTER GRAPHICS, MORE SOURCES