User:Colgateplants/Antheridiogen/Cmlaplante 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? Colgateplants
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Colgateplants/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I think so? Not sure what this means.
 * 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?
 * No, try and include those in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but it is used to preface content. Ex is describing homospory before going into pathway.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise

Lead evaluation
Very good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, mixture of older and recent sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not really, the discovery part is not entirely necessary but could be altered to focus more on the discovered molecule.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Not applicable?

Content evaluation
Over all good with the content

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, I think you should avoid using words such as "interestingly" and "in this article"
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Sounds slightly more speculative than it could. Can change this by avoiding the phrases above and also making it clear that though of course not everything in botany is understood, these represent the current understanding.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? For the most part.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not sure how major the discovery section is, but if it were expanded on corroborated it

Organization evaluation
Very good and clean presentation.

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


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

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not ALL literature, but a decent amount. Additional sources could be beneficial in the pathway section.
 * 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? Maybe change the subtitle "pathway" to "sex-determination pathway"
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
Good. I think that the main this is going to be maybe changing the subtitles to be more accessible if someone were to skim.

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
It is very well done. Main thing would be to avoid the slightly skeptical tone and be more definitive in what is being presented while also recognizing that is is based off of current understandings and could be changed. I also would reconsider the subheadings and the importance of the discovery section.