User:DeltaOmegaTen/Insular biogeography/Lhughesg 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?
 * DeltaOmegaTen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:DeltaOmegaTen/Insular biogeography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There was no lead present within the sandbox draft
 * 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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * For the most part, but some of the sources are dated. 7 out of 12 cited sources are over 20 years old.
 * 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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, they maintain neutral content and voice when adding new claims.
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources are current. The majority pulls information from the 1900's, so the accuracy might have to be reevaluated to see if it still applies to the subject matter.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links except the one belonging to the 1st citation work.

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?
 * One error I saw was under your research experiments section in the last paragraph and third sentence. The line that states "Recent research demonstrates how during the Anthropocene, it is becoming ever more important to consider how human influences impact island biogeography," "ever more" should be "even more." Besides that there were no grammatical or spelling errors that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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

Not applicable


 * 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.


 * 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 more complete. The added citations provide verifiable support for the claims mentioned which increases the article's quality. Additionally, your addition of an explanation detailing how researchers analyzed the evolutionary burst and current research on the topic improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Your organizational structure and detail.
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation- Overall, your article is excellent. The main thing to improve would be the citations. Primarily check the link to the first citation and check the information presented in the ones from the 1900's. ====