User:ColbyRee/Phacellophora camtschatica/Camille.cain 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)
 * ColbyRee
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:ColbyRee/Phacellophora camtschatica

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Added some details about the diet and motion of the species.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat, goes over a summary of some but not all parts
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Lead evaluation
Looks good, could add more of a summary of other parts of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It is relevant to the topic and adds more to previous sections as well as new additions.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Some sources are from the 1990s but most are up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be more added to the reproduction and life cycle section.

Content evaluation
Great use of adding to the sparse article, if more can be added to some sections that is great, but for the most part looks good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are none present
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No means of persuasion

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is balanced and does not sway too much into one topic in a biased way

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it is
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They seem to reflect it, some could be more updated.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are outdated, could have a couple more recent works
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most appear to work

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are looking good, but if there are any that are more current to add it would help the article more

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it is
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I see none
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Content is well organized

Organization evaluation
Article is organized well and has no grammatical errors

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (N/A)


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (N/A)'''


 * 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?
 * The article is definitely more complete for the species.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Great organization of sections and use of overall information
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Possibly finding more current sources and adding more to the summary section.

Overall evaluation
Great article overall, you really put a lot of effort into improving the information on the jellyfish