User:BenjaminMoes/Alpheidae/Sthomas10 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

 * BenjaminMoes
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BenjaminMoes/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * it discusses the overall topic of the species and what it is
 * the lead discusses and introduces the species but does not include all of the major subtopics that are later talked about
 * all of the information in the lead is included in the article
 * lead is clear and concise and lays out all basic info

Content
Guiding questions:


 * the content that is planned to be added is relevant
 * wants to add about mating rituals and how claw can affect dominance, mating, and attitudes of the species
 * the article and info is from recent time (within a year or two)
 * he is adding any considerably missing info

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * the content is completely neutral
 * there are no view points as both the author and ben are presenting data that explains certain aspects of the species

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * there are several sources that suggest basics but could use more diversity of research
 * sources vary in range of date, some sources use previous info and others use up to date information
 * there are a number of different researchers and authors who write and illustrate the info
 * most sources work, with a an error from one

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * the content being prepared to be added is clear and concise and enables readers to have more information and understanding of the species
 * the content is organized in a way to be prepared to be added

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?

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:


 * the content added does improve the quality for readers as it adds detailed information about the species
 * uses new, up to date research that dives in deeper to the original content