User:Blueocean87/Paragorgia arborea/Mehalkok 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) Blueocean87
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Blueocean87/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes (Lennaeus)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, could be longer but also provides a lot of information (and there is only so much you can/should provide) so it could be enough.

Lead evaluation
'''Possibly too concise? But in general well done. 8.5/10'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
'''It's a really good start, and everything is relevant. 9/10'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
'''Totally neutral. 10/10'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
'''A lot of great, relevant sources! My only suggestion would be to add in different kinds of sources like videos and websites. 9/10'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
'''Nice! Only suggestion is that on formatting, bibliography should get its own section and that should be clearly distinguished with a header. 8.5/10'''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
'''There is only one image in the description and none added, so I would highly suggest adding a few more. 6/10'''

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I can tell from the contributions how much work you actually put into adding things, which is great, and there is a lot of room to add things and a lot of room for improvement which makes this a solid project. All in all, everything looks good and I liked how concise and easy to read it was.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding more information if possible, definitely adding images, and maybe videos in external sources.

Overall evaluation
'''Great job! 9/10'''