User:BI496cHS/Lazarus taxon/Kelsie.Kienapple Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BI496cHS


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BI496cHS/Lazarus taxon


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lazarus taxon

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead section has not been updated to reflect the additional information that was added. In this section, the editor should have mentioned the multiple species that fall in the Lazarus taxon including the plant, fish, amphibians, mammals, reptiles and birds that were added to the original wiki page. None of these species were added, and therefore the lead section does not reflect the contents of the article. Additionally, the lead section prior to editing lacks majority of the pages contents including the preexisting species but also any information regarding the material in the communication and education section and  the basics of how the taxon has reappeared in fossil evidence. On the other hand, there is information in the lead that suggests an explanation of how these species were not found in fossils and then reappeared will be given, and this is not clearly outlined in the content section.

Furthermore, the content added to the article is relevant and up to date however, it is lacking adequate formatting for a typical wikipedia page. The format of the information added by the editor was all point form. There were not complete sentences added and there was an overall lack of sentence structure on bullet points that were made. Overall, this information could have been added in a paragraph style to break up the bullet points of various species. The addition of only bullet points to this article makes it very hard to maintain attention to the information being presented. Furthermore, there was an image added to the page, however, there is no real necessity for it as it displays one of the 100+ species listed within the article. While the addition of this information was helpful in expanding the readers knowledge of species affected, there were other parts of the article that could have been added to such as the communication and education section as well as an explanation of how this came to be, its discovery over time and new research advancements that have occurred recently.

Moreover, the addition of information in the first edit doesn't have an enthusiastic tone or balance. Due to the bullet point formatting, it comes across as very dull and lacks intrigue that would keep a reader interested. This being said, the editor was able to keep the tone neutral. There is no persuasive language added to the page which allows readers to draw their own conclusions. This is not surprising and the majority of this article is a point form list of species that fit into this taxa, leaving minimal room for bias all together. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to balance out the formatting to align with a more cohesive style. It is difficult to read when majority of the formatting is bullet points and thus, the addition of paragraph styled writing would aid in balancing out the overall article by making it easier to read.

Finally, the majority of sources appear to be scientific journals that have been published by a plethora of doctors on their own merit or through a website. This being said, because this is a science article, there are additional standards that need to be met. The article Great fox-spider rediscovered on MoD land in Surrey link that was listed does not follow the standards set by wikipedia for scientific articles. It is published by a news platform making it biased from the very beginning. Additionally, there are no listed authors, thus indicating that this article could have been written by a journalist with no scientific background and retrieved sources from specific specialists that aligned with their personal viewpoint. This skews the entire integrity of the article, thus making it not suitable as a source on a scientific page.