User:Cfannin5/Human impact on marine life/Hudson2222 Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?o Yes, the lead reflect the new content added.


 * 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? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No. Content  Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?Yes, the content is relevant and enhances the current version of the article.

• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is timely.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. I do not see any missing content and there is none 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? -This is a very important topic that is always evolving, so yes it deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses a topic that should be represented more.

Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?o Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the viewpoints are represented equally.

• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from

another?- No, there is no persuasion.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are reliable sources.

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)Yes, the information is found in the sources.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Yes, they are all thorough.


 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? She could have done a better job in finding more diverse authors and paying attention to that.

• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random

websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) She used many websites so I am sure there would be better sources available such as peer-reviewed articles.

• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is clear and concise.

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling errors but there is room for grammatical fixes.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It appears that the image was removed.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes there is a well written caption to the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I do not think so because it says that the "non-free image was removed".

• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes it would be.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Yes, there are reliable sources.

• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the

subject? The sources accurately represent literature available 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.
 * Overall impressions
 * Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?o The article is more complete with these changes.

• What are the strengths of the content added? The content makes the article more interesting and follows along with the content of the article.

• How can the content added be improved? The content would be improved by adding more to it to make it have its own paragraph in the article.

General info:

Whose work are you reviewing? Cfannin5

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cfannin5/Human_impact_on_marine_life

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Human impact on marine life

Evaluate the drafted changes:

The additions to this article are very concise and fit in with the rest of the article. The multiple sources are very reliable and back up the information. Concepts could be a little more in detail along with some grammatical errors. Also, the image uploaded should be fixed so that it follows Wiki guidelines and helps add to the article.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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.)