User:Babs subs/Trilobite/Lilladlili Peer Review

General info
@Babs subs
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Babs subs/Trilobite
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Trilobite

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.)

Lead


 * No edits have been made to the lead. I think the lead as it is right now is strong, but it needs some cited sources to back it up. I would recommend adding some citations to the lead.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It seems like the content added aligns with the topic of the article, though it is very specific and niche information.
 * Are there any other portions of the article you could make edits to? I think the "Importance" section could use some work (see my last comment in Tone and Balance), and maybe you could try to break up the big "Development" section into smaller sections about the different stages.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content comes from very recent sources, all of which are from last month.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would recommend giving a brief and not too technical explanation of what PPC-SRµCT is.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No issue with this.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I understand what your intent is, but phrases like "this supports" kind of sound like you're trying to convince readers of something or make some sort of argument that the information you're presenting is true. Possibly find a different way to phrase what you claim is being supported and state is as a fact rather than something that needs to be supported.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I didn't detect any issues with this.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Minimal persuasion, though I did notice some wording that you might want to change which I mentioned above.
 * I would recommend maybe checking the section titled "Importance" in the original article. I know you didn't write that portion, but it reads like an argumentative essay in my opinion. It states that trilobites are important when, in a Wikipedia article, the goal is to give unbiased information about a topic so readers can learn why it is important.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I can tell you used the sources to write your draft, but it is unclear what information came from which sources. Make sure to go back and edit this.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes! The content is a solid summary of the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources reflect available literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are very recent!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible
 * Diverse perspectives are represented across the 3 sources.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * All the sources you use seem to be written by people at the forefront of these recent discoveries, so that is a good sign.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * If you go back to the trainings on citations, they walk you through how to add a properly formatted "References" section with working links that get cited automatically for you by Wikipedia.

Organization

'''Overall, very nicely done! I would add some edits in a couple other portions of the article, but the section on "Diet" that you drafted is looking strong right now. You're on your way to making the Wikipedia article on Trilobites great :)'''
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written and very thorough. That being said, I think it is very technical and the average reader with minimal scientific knowledge might have some difficulty understanding concepts like "erosion of Ca+ ions" (probably say "Calcium" instead). Just go back through and see where you can simplify things a little for non-experts. Nice work, though, I can definitely tell that you have a solid understanding of your topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only error I caught was that "species" should be " species ' " (add an apostrophe after the final "s" to make it possessive) in the following sentence: "With little other references regarding similar digestive tracts, it is currently not possible to determine the makeup of similar sample species digestive tracts."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * What you've got so far is very well organized! Just figure out your citations and reference section and you'll be good on organization for the "Diet" section that you're planning to add. My one question is, where do you plan to incorporate this bit into the article? From what I read of the original article, it seems like it could fit after the original article section on the "Digestive Tract," though I am interested in what your plan was.