User:Bracoll/Nematocida parisii/Vamurph 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) Bracoll
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bracoll/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has been updated to add more general information about the parasite.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part, however I think a sentence could be added about the anatomy to tie in that major section of this article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, there are no parts of the lead that aren't also included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

==== Lead evaluation: I think the lead is very good so far. I think it covers the general information, but I think maybe just adding a sentence about the basic anatomy would help tie all the parts together. Other than that, I think it's good, and if other major sections are added, just be sure to add a brief sentence about it in the lead! ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yep, the sources used are fairly new and the most up-to-date on the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think most everything is there, I would suggest maybe just adding a sentence reiterating the fact that this host affects nematodes and whether that makes it heteroxenous or monoxenous. Adding things from what we learned in class is always a super helpful guide!

==== Content evaluation: I think for the first draft, this contains a lot of the most important information that someone would need to know about this parasite. Once there is a bit more detail added about the host and what type of parasite, I think these two sections will be pretty set. I think it would be worth finding, if possible, any sources that talk about using this as a way to control other parasites??? I don't know if thats a thing, but it would be really cool to add a tiny like two or three sentence paragraph about it if that's possible! That's something I would find most fascinating about this parasite. (Also I am not sure if you are keeping the stuff from the original wiki but if so then you are in even better shape!!) ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all of the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I don't see any claims that hold bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe that most points are very evenly distributed, in terms of how it is explained in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, I believe so.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, from what I can tell.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yep, the links work perfectly.

==== Sources and references evaluation: All the sources are good and up-to-date with the research it seems. There are some sentences that are not cited currently, but I am assuming that will be fixed later on. So, other than that, it looks great! ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I think the content flows well and is straightforward.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I found while reading through the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes there are sections added that weren't there before. It really helps to understand what each part is talking 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?

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, I think the addition of this content adds to the overall quality of this article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the sections were really important to the article (as originally there are none). I also think the writing was straightforward and very easy to understand for people who aren't experts in parasitology.
 * How can the content added be improved? There are really only a few minor details that need to be added to the existing drafted sections, which I mention above. Other than that, like I said if there are any articles that mention how this parasitic fungi could help to control nematodes in any way, I think that would be a cool biocontrol section that you could add. Or, since C. elegans are non-parasitic, maybe the negative effects that this parasite has on the ecology or wherever this plant species is found (due to the killing of a free-living worm). Whatever the data shows, if any, would be really interesting to learn more about!!