User:Audreycronin/Allogalathea elegans/Mproff 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? Audreycronin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Allogalathea elegans

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I think the lead can be expanded on a little bit. I would try to include a sentence or two that ties in each of your sections.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead states pretty straightforwardly what the wiki page is about. You should make sure to mention that the species is parasitic.
 * 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? Yes. It states common names for the species that are not mentioned elsewhere.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise but I believe it should include a little more information that summarizes the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Again, I couldn't tell what information is original and what has been added, but all the information I saw is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The most recent citation is from 2013, while most of this information can still be considered up-to-date, I would try to find more recent sources for the remaining citations.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that all of the sections could be expanded on. The description of the species itself could be edited to include better wording and sentence structure.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is mostly neutral. There appears to be some adjectives ("shy crustacean") and other phrase ("taking advantage of") that may not be considered neutral.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Mostly. You could consider including some more recent sources.
 * 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? Some of the sentence structure and wording can be changed to be more readable.
 * 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? I would suggest turning some of your headings into subheadings. (Distribution >Habitat and Behaivor> In Aquaria)

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?

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?