User:Avdelfierro/Styela clava/Sbrobbchavez 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)
 * 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
Look like a true lead-in/introduction is still in the works-I would advise making sure that all sections are touched on within (like your new section on this species as an aquatic invasive).

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
I saw that the original article doesn't say much about this species as a widespread aquatic invasive-something which is very relevant in the world today (climate change, etc). I can't see your references yet to check if they are recent, but what you have added definitely belongs here. Missing pieces you might wish to cover include a quick reference to its taxonomy, feeding, life history traits.

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
I would be careful with a few phrases like "most likely...," perhaps change to something a bit more neutral like "Some researcher believe...," etc. Other than that, it does not seem like you are pushing any kind of sea squirt agenda.

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
No references are visible quite yet-of course, you will want to add these later.

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 might suggest breaking the invasive species elements of this into separate subheaders such as invaded range, vectors of distribution, potential ecosystem impacts, etc. Not too many spelling/grammatical errors, but I might suggest sticking to writing in the active voice, as this is a science-related article.

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 imagery added yet. If you choose to do so, be sure to google image search with the licensing options set to "open source" or "fair use".

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?

New Article Evaluation
This article existed as a stub previously-theoretically already passes muster.

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
It looks like you have a ways to go yet, but are on the right path in describing this species invasive aspects and distribution. With a few additional pieces of information, this should be a solid article when you are finished.