User:Daisysandpeaches/Yixianopterus/Livvv2024 Peer Review

General info
@Daisysandpeaches
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Yixianopterus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Yixianopterus

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead sentence is very concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not necessarily. However, since there is only one section, it seems appropriate for the amount of information that is there.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise and well-worded.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. I can tell that there are not many sources related to this species, so the amount of information in the article seems appropriate.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * 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

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I could not find other sources on this species.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The content is very concise and well-written. It packs a lot of information in.
 * 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?
 * Yes.

For New Articles Only

 * 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?
 * The list of sources is appropriate for the amount of information included in the article. I was unable to find additional sources on the topic.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is backed up by strong literature sources and is very concise. The cladogram is a nice touch and adds to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The author could add more detail, possibly about the skull being fabricated, or perhaps other identifying features of this group.