User:Alex Prieditis/Sustainable yield/Saraentwistle 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) Alex Prieditis
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sustainable yield

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * 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? not really, but article is very short right now so there aren't sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise

Lead evaluation
It's more of an opening paragraph.

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? Missing content would be all the different kinds of sustainable yields. I can see Alex has begun adding subtopics - forestry, fisheries, and groundwater. Those could be expanded upon and include some examples of current or historical sustainable yields. Should be more thorough.

Content evaluation
Incomplete, but on the right track.

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 favour of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Unbiased, evenly balanced. It's kind of hard to have a biased perspective on this topic, unless it was from the perspective of a particular industry maybe?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.
 * Are the sources current? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are no sources in this article, they need to be added. However this article so far is mostly just defining what a sustainable yield is so the sources needed would be few.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
Well organized and written.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Somewhat.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
Image is of a fish in a net. Does not really contribute to the understanding of sustainable yields, but it shows an example of a relevant industry. There's no reference for the photo.

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? No.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No sources.
 * 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? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
No sources to prove it's relevancy or legitimacy. However it does have a see also section which is good.

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? Explains the concept of sustainable yields well, provides the examples of industries where it is important to consider.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add sources, expand on kinds of sustainable yields and their relevance/importance.

Overall evaluation
Good for the beginning of this assignment and a first article. Needs more content and sources to back up statements.