User:Calynneweewie/Doriprismatica atromarginata/Pacanins22 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) Calynneweewie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Calynneweewie/Doriprismatica atromarginata

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated with new content by Calynne.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The sandbox does begin with the scientific canoe and that it is a species of a sea slug.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not clearly defined, but organized by separated paragraphs.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The original lead is very brief and concise.

Lead evaluation
There is not any added content within the lead. The original lead gives the scientific name, that it is a species of sea slug, that it is a nudibranch, meaning they are a shell-less marine gastropod mollusk belonging to Chromodorididae. There could be more information given within the lead, such as specific zones within the ocean they can be found, a brief description of their look, ecology and diet; to be further expanded throughout the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All content is from resources published within the last 15 years from peer-reviewed articles.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
All content added is relevant to the topic, it is up to date and all belong to the description of this particular sea slug species.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
All content is neutral, there are no opinions shared.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
All resources listed are from the past 15 years, all from peer-reviewed articles. They are all based on information of nudibranchs.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes and no, explained below.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A couple of grammatical errors, explained below.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not yet.

Organization evaluation
The content is easy to read, it would be easier if the content was organized with Headings to help guide the reader through the information. The content looks like notes, which is perfectly fine to help with the first draft. There are some things that need to be edited, such as all species names need to italicized, and "G.atromarginata" needs a space between: "G. atromarginata". There is a space needed in "soft gastropo ds.O ne new metabolite".

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
No images were added, and may not be necessary to add. The original article have several images that are well- captioned and are of public domain.

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
Calynne is not creating a new article for this species.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Content that is being added is absolutely improving the original article. The original article was extremely short, only going into (brief) detail of the species description and ecology. Calynne goes into detail about the chemical compounds from consuming sponges, what the metabolites found in this sea slug act as a defense mechanism. She also mentions what surrounding countries these sea slugs can be found, and how they differ in their larval stages compared to other nudibranchs. As mentioned above, adding more information on specific zones within the ocean they can be found, their specific ecology and their diet (types of sponges they like to consume with links to their Wiki articles.