User:Cached DNA/Aequorea forskalea/Avdelfierro 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? Cached DNA
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Aequorea forskalea

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and makes it clear that the article is about Aequorea forskalea. Telling us the species classification, who discovered it, and where it was initially found. There is a contents portion in the lead that tells us what we can expect in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Yes, the content added to the topic is relevant and up-to-date. Everything that is mentioned in the contents pane is further explained later in their appropriate sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and unbiased. I felt no attempt of persuasion while reading the article. The information presented is purely descriptive which is good.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
In the original article, there are redundant links and the sources do not bolster the article appropriately. Cached DNA did a great job catching that. The sources this person added range from old to current which is balanced. I checked a few of the new sources added and the link works. Many of the sources are peer-reviewed which add credibility, but they are not all peer-reviewed so there is diversity in sources. All sources are on topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written and I did not catch any grammatical or spelling errors. I think the content is organized well because it feels like it flows from each topic.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There is no image, so adding an image would be a great addition to the article! I did notice the external link, but I still believe a picture on the page would benefit the article a lot.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The original article was extremely minimal with just a lead. The sources added definitely bolster to the credibility of the article since it went from 4 sources to 14 sources. The quality of the sources were greatly improved upon as well. I appreciated the call out to the list of synonyms on the right. When I read the original article, I was not drawn to to explore it. Cached DNA did a nice job directing my attention. There are plenty of links within this article to make it more discoverable.

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
The content additions greatly improved upon the original article since it was so little before. The additions definitely giving the article a more complete feel, but also leave some room for even further completion. I think the best way to improve the article would be the addition of visuals, especially in the description section. Especially for the non-scientific audience, I think an image there would help understand what is being described. In the lead section, maybe adding in the common name of the invertebrate or again, a visual, would help. I think Cached DNA did a great job on the draft.