User:Camillemarie222/Beneficial weed/JasmineSandoval26 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Camillemarie222


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Camillemarie222/Beneficial weed
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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/Intro


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is not an introductory sentence that clearly state's what the article topic is. The article seems to start abruptly.

Sources and References


 * Check a few links. Do they work? I tried clicking on the links and they are not clickable and one of the sources in the bibliography does not have a link. The sources are also not listed in alphabetical order.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are somewhat current! I do believe there can be more found however.

For New Articles

This article seems to be new as there is not much information present.


 * 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? No, so far the article does not follow the headings of similar articles and it seems as though the headings are at the bottom. However, I do understand that this is a draft.

Overall Impressions


 * What are the strengths of the content added? So far, a strength of this article is that once there is a claim made there are examples to back it up. So far there seems to be a good start to their claim of how weeds are beneficial, such as using weeds for medicinal purposes.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content of the article is lacking at the moment but I know with time it can be beefed up! There is definitely a good start!