User:Ccoult2/Orange clownfish/Iz Nguyen 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? (Ccoult2)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ccoult2/Orange clownfish (sent as a word document since wikipedia is not working)

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 of the article provides an overview of orange clownfish along with their living association with sea anemones. The introductory sentence of the lead clearly identifies that the article will be discussing clownfish. The article also contains a contents section that breaks up the major sections in an easy to read fashion. The lead does not include some information that is present in the article; however, I think that adding it would be confusing.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content that is being added is relevant to the article, but I think that a new section should be made for it since it contrast from the rest of the topics discussed. The contents are relevant and up-to-date. The content is missing information about ocean acidification, which is why this draft would be a great addition in adding underrepresented information in the wikipedia clownfish article.

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 information added is factual, so has a neutral standpoint. The viewpoints being added are underrepresented which is why it would be a great addition. It might persuade the readers to use less carbon dioxide emissions because it could negatively effect clownfish.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content is backed up by scholarly articles that were published in 2009. One of the articles from Jstor was very thorough, however, I was only able to access the abstract of the Wiley article. Both articles were written by reliable authors that specialize in the work that they are writing about. The authors do not seem to be historical individuals. The links/doi do work.

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 added is well-written in clear in its message. There were not any grammatical or spelling errors. The content being added is intended to be added under the habitat portion as its own paragraph; however, I think it would fit nicely as its own section as special characteristics.

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
My peer did not add images. I think that an diagram of ocean acidification would be beneficial to add.

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 article being added meets the notability requirements being cited by 2 reliable sources. The article does link to other references 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
I think that the content being added would improve the quality of the article to make it more complete. It would strengthen information about the olfactory features of clownfish.