User:Ark2511/Chemical defense/Kitbrooks 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)
 * --> Ark2511's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * --> User:Ark2511/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
--> There has not been an updated Lead to reflect new content. The edit for this article is not related for the Lead, but there were no additions added for amphibians.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
--> The content added is related to chemical defense, which is the topic of the article. The content added is up to date. I think all of the content added belongs in the addition. No equity gaps were addressed or dealt as chemical defenses does not really relate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
--> The content added was about amphibians, and was neutral. No claims were biased as far as I can tell. Viewpoints seemed to be very neutral and scientifically based. Content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
--> All new content is backed up by reliable secondary source information where it was needed. These sources used reflect the available literature on amphibians and are thorough. They are also current sources. I am not sure about the diversity of authors, however. Links work fine!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
--> I personally found the singular example of a type of frog to be rather isolated and random in the writing. Perhaps adding another species of frog or another amphibian would help make the writing stronger and more understandable. The reading was concise and easy to read, and was broken down into sections.

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
--> No images or media were added. Some images could be used to enhance the understanding of the topic! Could help to add pictures of amphibians.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
--> I think the article is more complete now that it has information about amphibians, as they are an important example of chemical defenses in nature. The organization and introduction of the content was great, but maybe adding another example of amphibians would help improve the content overall.