User:Avdelfierro/Styela clava/ColbyRee 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? Avdelfierro
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Avdelfierro/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
Not sure where the lead is on this article. It would be helpful to add one or at least indicate where it is at. Also, when adding a lead I would recommend including the common name of the animal. Additionally, a description of what to expect in the article would be useful.

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?

Content evaluation
The content provided is relevant to the topic, but it is hard to know if it is up to date due to a lack of sources provided. Also, content provided here lacks some information about the species that would be useful such as taxonomy, reproduction/life cycle, and diet.

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 tone of the article is neutral. However, more simplified language should be used to appeal to a more general audience. Furthermore, diversity in the topic would help improve the balance of the article.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I could not see any sources provided so I am not sure how reliable these sources are. However, sources were indicated. Though, only four were eluded to. I would recommend adding more sources to your article. Additionally, some statements/sentences were made without citations.

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
Content is well written, but needs to be organized better. The content needs to be separated into different sections. Also, more content should be added as the article is very short at the time being. I would recommend expanding into new 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 provided, though they were not required yet. Therefore, I will not asses this section.

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 enjoyed reading the article, though it was far to short. The strength of the article is the information/topic provided. If this content was expanded upon and separated, then this article could be pretty good. Though, adding more sections and new content should be prioritized. Also, adding and finding new sources should be important.