User:Amwelch/Spirometra erinaceieuropaei/Zsheets10 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) Amwelch
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Amwelch/Spirometra erinaceieuropaei

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
 * 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

Lead evaluation
Cannot evaluate lead as it has not been rewritten yet. (I hadn't written my lead yet, either)

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? Most of what is written is relevant to topic, nothing important seems to be missing

Content evaluation
Content is on topic and seems relatively important for understanding the parasite. The only thing I would change is removing some of the definitions for words that already have a Wikipedia page that defines them, like definitive host, intermediate host, parentenic host (all of which are defined on the wiki page for "host") and bothria. Instead of defining the terms in the paper, they could instead be linked to the wiki pages that define them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Mosty, yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? One sentence seems to be a bit subjective without any sources to back it up, but that's it.
 * 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
Only one sentece bothered me a bit, "The S. erinaceieuropaei life cycle is more complicated than most..." This seems somewhat subjective, there is no point of reference. I would reword it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all sources secondary
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Earliest article is from 2002, most are after 2010
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Some sources are primary, but I'm not sure if that is super important for this topic. The sources themselves seem fine otherwise.

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 as far as I can tell
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Seems fine to me, but I'm not one that can pick up on grammatical errors easily.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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? Adds plenty of important information that was not in the original article; flows well; written well
 * How can the content added be improved?  Remove some unnecessary definitions, and reword a sentence to make it less subjective

Overall evaluation
Just needs a new introduction and pictures and a maybe a couple of changes in the body but otherwise is very good.