User:Breannamoody1/Polycarpa Aurata/Ireneayala99 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? Breannamoody1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Breannamoody1/Polycarpa Aurata

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introduction sentence is clearly describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, could use brief description about each section in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all the information in lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, I would just add small summaries about each major section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, but instead of having a taxonomy section I would add a Taxa Box. You can copy and paste it from an existing page and then add your information. I would expand a little more on the information you have, just make it flow better.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content was neutral.
 * 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

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.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the link for the source works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content was well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I would just use complete sentences when.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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? No, there is only one source.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There could be more information added to more accurately represent the subject, but I feel like there is more information that you can find later.
 * 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? Yes, I just think it would be good to add a Taxa Box.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, but if you add the taxa box it will link it to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is well organized, you just need to add a little more information, and brief descriptions about each section in the lead.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Source is very good and peer reviewed.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the pharmacology impact section is a very good section, I would just add a little more detail if possible.