User:Darcyperin/Costasiella ocellifera/Hbruck137 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Darcyperin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Darcyperin/Costasiella ocellifera
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Costasiella ocellifera

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

If the background information is meant to be the lead, then it contains relevant information to the species and is presented in an unbiased way. It contains concise information that isn't overly detailed and is a good introduction. But if the background is meant to be content, then a lead section needs to be added that includes general info and a brief description of the articles sections.

Content:

The content discussed is relevant. However, none of the information is cited so it is nearly impossible to find where the information was taken from. Based on the bibliography, the sources used are relevant, unbiased, and some are new information that can be added to the Wikipedia page. I feel that all the information belongs, but there is definitely more that can be added considering the number of sources listed in the bibliography. The information provided is organized in a way that is easy for readers to follow and understand. Overall, it is a really good start to the page but needs a bit more information and details from the sources.

Tone and Balance:

The content is neutral with no clear bias (or none that I could detect) towards one author or publication. However, since the information is not cited I cannot tell if one source is used much more than all the others. There is no persuasion in the article, it does a good job providing the information in a neutral tone.

Sources and References:

None of the information in the article were cited, definitely go through and add a References list to make sure the correct citations are in place. Based on the bibliography, the references are from reliable and unbiased sources as most of them are primary resources. It also has a wide range of authors and some newer publications.

Organization:

Overall, the content is easy to read and organized in a way that is easy to follow. There were a couple of grammatical errors, but nothing major. The more complicated topics were described in a way to allow readers to understand without having to go digging for more information in another place and become confused. The information is broken into sections that are helpful and relevant to the important points of the species.

Images and Media:

There is no images included, make sure to add a couple of pictures or two because these look really cool and having pictures would definitely spark interest.

Overall Impressions:

The content has definitely improved on the original article as there is much more information, it is organized in a more reader-friendly manner, and it contains much more relevant and reliable references. The delivery and explanation of the information provided is strong and is well-written, I think the information could be expanded with more details and citations with a reference list needs to be added.