User:Anniecia/Neacomys spinosus/Desensi ashley 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) - Anniecia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Neacomys spinosus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has.
 * 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 could have a little more information on them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, but maybe a bit too much so.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all added content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It would seem that it is.
 * 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.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The description and distribution sections need a few more citations added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there are many sources in google scholar and galileo that are not being utilized. Many articles on genetics, parasites, ecology, community structure, etc.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * 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.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No.
 * 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? I think so, but I am not sure.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, but may need more information from journal articles.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives a clear description of the species and where it lives.
 * How can the content added be improved? More detail for the ecology. Maybe some information on genetics and other relevant info.

Overall evaluation
Off to a great start!