User:DeltaOmegaTen/Insular biogeography/Stercorarius Parasiticus 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

I am reviewing article revisions by DeltaOmegaTen

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DeltaOmegaTen/sandbox&oldid=991937829

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
No edits were made to the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added was really good at providing additional context. However, as I stated earlier, many of the sources are very old. Many scientific fields have changed significant in the past 40-50 years so it may be good to confirm the information with some newer sources. You do exactly this at the end of the experiments section and it works really well! Maybe try doing this same approach in the other sections.

The content added is relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone was a bit technical but you did a good job of providing a lot of detail and information. Maybe break down some of the theory a bit more. The writing appears to be neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are also primary sources from the academic literature. However, some of the links do not work (#1 for example). Additionally, one of the sources is repeated (8 and 10) There are also spots were citations are yet to be added. Many of the sources are very old (40+ years). That does not mean that they are inaccurate or can't be used, however I would recommend that you try to find some more recent papers. Could not determine all the authors due to links not working^

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Organization follow the structure of the original article. You made some good edits in many spots but I think additional edits need to be made to explain some of the ideas (see overall impression). No spelling or grammar errors were noticed.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in your revision. It looks like there are a couple graphs already in the original but I would recommend that you add some images to liven up the article and provide context.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

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
I think you did a great job of revising the original article to improve it. I particularly like the section that you added at the very end, providing additional context using new research. However there are some small adjustments I would make to improve it more. The biggest things I would say is to add some new sources, and break down some of the ideas to increase readability for someone unfamiliar with the topic. For example, you state that mountaintops can be "islands" but don't clearly explain why. You give some context later but I think if you clearly state some definitions, then explain when you introduce new ideas, you could make the writing a lot more accessible.