User:Anna.bolm/Jellyfish Blooms/Rahoward3 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? Jellyfish bloom group
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Anna.bolm/Jellyfish blooms

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 but could be a little less general
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does though there could be more about their geologic history
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could be more concise

Lead evaluation
The lead might be better as a single paragraph or two paragraphs. It's a little choppy and it seems like each paragraph corresponds to a specific sections and there isn't as much flow. But, the content is generally good and summarizes the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? This is a new page
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Possibly the paleontological history

Content evaluation
As discussed last week, there was a thought that the paleontological history didn't belong. I think it should stay but it might be better separated out from modern history into its own section and could note that the fossilized jellyfish may falsely identify past blooms. It almost gets there in that section but not quite.

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 but there wasn't much information included in the industry paragraph and it wasn't entirely clear how that differed from fisheries or tourism, since both are industries.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The industry section could either use a different title or more information, possibly both. It could just use more detail to differentiate it from the other parts of this section, which seems to be power plants.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources seem to be well selected

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? "endangerment" in causes is awkward, probably not the right word, Brodeur et al needs a date and citation, double check on zooxanthellate vs. zooxanthelae
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes - just maybe re-name the industry section

Organization evaluation
The Causes section sort of just elaborates on the lead, and includes more detail on the following topics. This may be fixed by reducing what's in the lead paragraph. More links may be helpful.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes except the first and second. The first is misleading and the second doesn't really seem to add much.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image of distribution could use better wording for the key explanation, it was somewhat confusing.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They seem to
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Mostly good except the first two, noted above

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? They have 36 sources and has a wide range of literature
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Could use some more links

New Article Evaluation
It is well thought out as a new article but could use additional links and maybe more see also links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes - new article that elaborates on a topic in the jellyfish page
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It covers a wide range of impacts that jellyfish blooms have and doesn't just focus on one geographic region or time period
 * How can the content added be improved? Could add the suggestions above and maybe some more detail on the existing information. The tone could be smoother and the transitions.