User:BrendenB2002/Ischadium/Edort930 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BrendenB2002


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrendenB2002/Ischadium?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ischadium

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * No, I do not think new content has been added by my peer.
 * 1) Yes, there is an intro sentence.
 * No, there is no summary of all the major topics.
 * No, lead's information is used throughout the article.
 * 1) Yes, the lead is concise.

Content


 * 1) Yes, the added content is relevant.
 * 2) Yes, it looks like this is the most up-to-day information.
 * 3) I do not think anything does not belong. However, I would see if there is information available about a general description, reproduction, or ecology.
 * 4) This article does not deal with these topics.

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Yes, the content is neutral.
 * No, none of the claims seem biased.
 * 1) I don't think any viewpoints are over/underrepresented (content maybe as noted above) but a neutral tone throughout.
 * 2) Nope, the content is factual and straightforward.

Sources and References


 * No, there are some areas noted in the sandbox edits that should have more citations.
 * 1) Yes, it looks like the content accurately reflects the cited sources.
 * 2) The sources look thorough.
 * 3) The sources are likely the most current available.
 * 4) Yes, it seems like a diverse group of references.
 * 5) I'm assuming these are the best sources available on this specific organism.
 * 6) The links it tried worked.

Organization


 * 1) Yes, the content is clear, concise, and easy to read for the most part. The sandbox edits explain some areas that might require more clarification.
 * 2) There are some minor grammar errors in the first and last paragraphs, which are noted in the sandbox edits.
 * 3) Yes, I think this content is broken into the appropriate sections to reflect the major points. (You can make headings actual headings tho-- explained in the sandbox edits)

Images and Media


 * 1) Yes, images are used.
 * 2) Yes, they are well captioned.
 * 3) I think they adhere to copyright (but maybe double check to be safe).
 * 4) Yes, I think the visuals are laid out in an appealing way.

Overall Impression


 * 1) Yes! It definitely is more complete with the additional information on predation, strategies to avoid predation, and habitat, rather than solely the lead information.
 * 2) The content provides a more in depth look at Ischadium recurvum. It also adds from more sources than before.
 * 3) As noted above, more can be added on some other aspects of Ischadium recurvum. The references can be more implemented throughout the article and the grammar can be checked as well.