User:Axolotl21/Osmotrophy/Pinguicula02 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) Axolotl21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Axolotl21/Osmotrophy

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
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead does reflect some of the added content, although not all since the article can elaborate some more on osmotrophy in fungi. Overall the Lead does describe the major sections presented in the article. Some sentences can also be changed so that it does not sound like the same sentence is being repeated later on in the article.

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 added content is relevant and relatively up-to-date. The article can include more information on osmotrophy in fungi and as an evolutionary adaptation. The role of fluid motion in osmotrophy can also be further explained.

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 is neutral and shows no apparent bias. The part of the article about body size and surface area seems to be somewhat overrepresented when compared to other ideas presented in 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?
 * 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
Some of the content added do not have in-text citations so it is unclear if all content is backed by the sources presented. The sources seem to be thorough research papers and are relatively up-to-date. The sources were written by a diverse spectrum of authors although more sources can be included.

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
The content is overall well written, concise, and easy to read. There are a few grammar errors that need to be fixed. The content should also be organized into sections to reflect the major points of the 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
The image does help enhance understanding of the topic and is visually appealing. It would be a good idea to include the species name of the fungi if possible. The image does seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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
The content added did improve the overall quality of the article and made it more complete. The content added helped explain osmotrophic processes in greater detail and introduced new main points to the article. The content added can improve by using more sources and adding sections for major points that better elaborate on concepts such as osmotrophy in fungi and how osmotrophy is used by other organisms.