User:Annemjunttila/Clava (hydrozoa)/Jordannstone 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? Annemjunttila
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Annemjunttila/sandbox

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? Yes has contents box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise but short.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I see in the references yes, 2014, and 2011 articles
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Since it is not finished it is missing content, a rough plan is seen.

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? Since its a rough draft, further work needs to be done.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, journal articles and .org articles
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Mostly life stages currently and movement
 * Are the sources current? Pretty current, 2014, 2011
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Live article does, sandbox does not
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? From the outline, it will provide more information than its live status
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Larval stage
 * How can the content added be improved? Completed