User:Cgb2137/Erioderma pedicellatum/Sgtrab01 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) Cgb2137
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cgb2137/sandbox

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 has not been updated, though I feel that is still a concise and accurate introduction to the content of the article. It does a very good job of briefly introducing each of the major sections mentioned in the article. It does not include any information not present. More could probably be added to flesh it out a little bit more, maybe to begin mentioning current conservation action after the last sentence.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and up to date, especially the content pertaining to lichen conservation. Have there been any updates regarding the symbiotic relationship of this particular type of lichen or any thoughts on the effects of climate change on this species of lichen?

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 content added is neutral!

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the sources are reliable, current, and the links work. Are there any more papers that are published on this species that might have relevant information? Or, if not on the species, on the family, that would be usefult o include?

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
Added content is well-written, and well-organized. Is there anything else to add besides to the conservation aspect of this species?

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
I assume you'll be keeping the photos that are in the original article, but could never hurt to add more photos and disperse them more throughout the article rather than having them in a gallery collection like they do in the original article!

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
n/a

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
The article is more complete now and gives the reader an idea of what these lichens are, why these lichens are endangered, and how researchers are trying to manage their conservation! The added content is very clear, well-written, and relevant! In that section, I'm not sure if it is applicable but it seems like some hyperlinks could be added in. Also, I don't know how much literature is out there on the other aspects (i.e. description, distribution and ecology) of this species that has not been included already, if any, but if there are any it would be good to update the other sections as well! Most of the sources for this paper used in the original article are at least 10 years old so it would be good to see if any research has been done to update this page besides the conservation efforts. I would also add some more photos or figures throughout the article. Overall, really good job!!