User:Brigv713/Rossia/Jsjacobs98 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) Brigv713
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Rossia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has the species of the genus.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes and no, it only describes the number of species, not there features or anything unique.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but there is only one section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the fact that the genus is a member of the bobtail squid.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, if anything more detail needed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I'd say no. No information on the behavior, physical traits or environment of the genus.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It appears so, all listed species are followed by dates up to the 1950s
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a lot of content missing. There is nothing on what makes the genus unique or what makes it similar to other sepiolidae.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, no bias or sides appear in information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented, no info on what makes the species unique from each other.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all information has appropriate links.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are placed when needed to highlight information listed.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, up to 2018 according to the reference.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link did work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The information is easy to read and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No noticeable grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized, but there is only one real topic focused on, the species.

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? The article still has a ways to go to be complete. This article needs information on the traits and characteristics of the genus. I hope to see what makes this genus unique in the future.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the strengths are that it shows the depth of species for this genus.
 * How can the content added be improved? More information on the genus as a whole is needed. Also, information on what separates this genus from others and the species themselves, how they are unique from each other.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article does provide basic info on what is needed for a species section, but more info needs to be added about the other areas of the genus. This review has made me think more in depth about what I want from an article and I hope to apply that when editing my own article further.