User:ChristianHicks7/Thoosa mismalolli/Ireneayala99 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? (ChristianHicks7)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ChristianHicks7/Thoosa mismalolli

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead does reflect the content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the introductory sentence clearly describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but I would add a brief sentence about reproduction in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kind of, you talk about the spicules but then don't talk about them later on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that the lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content added so far is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, but again maybe talk more about the spicules, or a small description about the 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all the information is backed up by reliable sources.
 * 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? A few of the links work, but there are a few that take you to a proxy login and are not properly sourced.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is well organized and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? mismalolli should always be italicized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well organized, I would add a description section if possible. I would also add a Taxa Box instead of having a taxonomy section, you can copy and paste from an existing page and just add in your information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? Yes it does have more than 3 reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes the list of sources accurately represent the 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? I would just add a Taxa Box, and maybe add a description section.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No there are not any links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes all the content added has improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You have a good amount of peer reviewed sources just make sure that they are cited correctly.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think with a little more information the article will be improved.