User:Beemaxilla/Limacina helicina/Mroush2 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? Beemaxilla
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Beemaxilla/Limacina helicina

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 of this article does a good job at explaining what the species, when it was discovered and where it is found. it is short and concise and it leads into the article nicely. It is not overly detailed and makes you want to keep reading more. I do not think the lead needs to be updated based on your information.

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 content you are adding to the article is relevant as it helps the reader understand how the species survives. The content of the article and the content you are adding are both up to date with articles published in 2016 and 2020, it means the content is relevant and correct. I do not believe that any of the content in to article does not belong.

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 you are adding is neutral, it is not trying to persuade the reader or have a specific viewpoint. I did not see any claims that were biased, or attempt to persuade the reader.

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
the article itself is very thorough as almost every sentence is backed up by a reliable source. Along with the content you are adding to the page, it is backed up by reliable journal articles. The sources that you are using are current as they were published in 2016 and 2020. The links for the sources work.

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 concise, clear, and easy to read, it does not contain any grammatical errors and it is well organized. although i do have a question about the end of what you are adding, at the end do you mean that is also results in a decline of survival? that is the only thing i am confused about.

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
peer did not add any images.

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 you are adding to the article will improve the over all quality and help the reader understand the organisms better. The strengths of the content added are that you talked about how the animal deals with the stress of the environment. one thing you could improve is to talk about the environment that it leave in relative to the content you are adding. what causes the abiotic stress? not enough food? and what is transcriptomic plasticity.