User:Bmassey98/Sacculina carcini/Jrhombe 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) Bmassey98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sacculina carcini User:Bmassey98/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It does not appear that the lead has been update in the sandbox of the peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Lead evaluation
From what I read in the sandbox, the author has not created a Lead for this article. I do not know if that is because there was already a Lead written on this topic or not.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content added is relevant to the topic and enhances further knowledge on topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all added content is up-to-date, provided articles within the past 5-10 years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Thea author had started a new section, which would be good additive info to this topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All content appeared neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It would be beneficial to add media to the appearance section, if possible. (I had problems uploading media)
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is solely informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All information presented is backed by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think the author may have used one of the same sources twice on accident.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They appear to be
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links appear to be functioning

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Since it is just a sandbox edit, the cocontent appeared to flow relatively well and was easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In the first section, Sacculina carcini should be italicized. There were a few other grammatical errors that could be fixed, but no major problems
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Again, it's the sandbox so it seemed pretty organized for that.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There were no added images
 * 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

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?