User:Cmlaplante/Rooibos/Colgateplants 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) Caroline (Cmlaplante)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cmlaplante/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: I can't answer these because I am not quite sure what the lead consists of - I like the first sentence that you wrote so that could be a good thing to put at the top of the page so that readers know that there is info about reproduction and that connects nicely to the rest of the page which is mostly about the historical usage of the tea. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is all about rooibos
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No but this species previously had no biological information so it is filling a gap

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? Not every sentence or topic has a source so just make sure you are linking those
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they seem to have given a good idea of reproduction in this speices
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat - some older, some newer
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, all the sources are from different authors
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

==== Sources and references evaluation: overall good, maybe just add some more. I think we are supposed to have a minimum of 7. Also I see some authors are in parentheses so make sure you replace those with Wiki numbering ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some sentences have double spaces, no punctuation or unnecessarily capitalized words so just make sure it reads clearly
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No - make sure you do this. Maybe you could do a main title called Reproduction and then some sub sections like intro/description and then something else

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No pictures yet
 * 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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes! The current article has no information about the botanics of Rooibos, only really its usage throughout history, so this is a great contribution
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Really fills a gap in the page for this species and goes in depth about the reproductive process and the role of animals
 * How can the content added be improved? You could add more sources and maybe incorporate some more of the content we've learned about in this class