User:Breannamoody1/Polycarpa Aurata/Mproff 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? The lead looks like it is a good start. I would expand on it only slightly after the article is finished so it includes at least a small bit of information from each section.
 * 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? It does mention the species distribution but not the other sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The common name of the species.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. Could afford to be expanded a little more.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There is only one source from 2002. I would consider this up-to-date but some more recent source material should be cited if possible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? This appears to just be an outline but based on what is written I think it will turn out to be a very well-rounded article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. It is only an outline so there does not appear to be any bias.

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? More sources are needed.
 * Are the sources current? somewhat.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
'''Guiding questions: It is only an outline so it is difficult to determine how well your article is written and organized. I think the headings/sections you have chosen are good and will flow well.'''

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? There is only one source listed but I am going to assume its a safe bet since it had to be approved by Josh.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is only one source listed.
 * 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? The outline appears to look like the beginning of a typical wiki article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? There are no links.

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?

==== Overall evaluation: I think this is a good outline for your article. I am excited to read it when you are done. I don't think I can give you any feedback that you don't already know. Just make sure that you have current sources and do your best to link to other wiki articles when you are finished. ====