User:Calvindickensusc/Amphioctopus aegina/Macthethird 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
or you don't have one so I searched and reviewed based off the first link Amphioctopus)
 * Calvindickensusc
 * Amphioctopus (I'm either very dumb and couldn't find your page except for this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Voidog/Xylocopa_darwini/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion

Tone and Balance
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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes very concise and clearly written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Organized well and split up appropriately

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Yes has sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Large amount of sources that are accurate
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

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?
 * Article looks complete along with being well written
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gives accurate information with no bias and clearly well written
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Better assortment of information