User:E3B-DM/Venus flytrap/Cgb2137 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) E3B-DM
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:E3B-DM/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The official Lead has not been updated.  However, this is only a subsection, so it it assumed that the Lead will be updated prior to publication to reflect this new information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Based solely on this subsection, there is a clear introductory sentence explaining the current conservation status of the species.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the second paragraph introduces the species' major threats, and follows with more detail explaining each one.
 * 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 concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes - the citations are primarily from 2016-2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? If the information is available, it would be ideal to include the current state status of the species for South Carolina, as the section lists its primary range as North and South Carolina, and the North Carolina state status is included.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, and any point added that may be deemed "controversial" is backed by a citation, not by opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No - I think each point is balanced as to not bring favoritism.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not believe so - I think each point is equally represented by the cited data.
 * 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 - everything is cited from non-biased sources that are current.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of the sources are from news outlets an regional government documents. It could be nice to cite some scientific papers, but that may make the section feel unbalanced depending on its scope.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * 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?  I did not find any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Move the closing paragraph ("The US FWS has not indicated a timeline...") to the beginning after referencing the current review (sentence two), or make reference in the beginning that the current review is still happening.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - No


 * 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? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think this new section brings a new sense of what is happening with the species from a conservation stance, but also with human interaction. I thought the added paragraph about poaching was very interesting because most people think of poaching in terms of animals, not plants.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think minor edits can be made, as pointed out above. But overall, I think, conceptually, the section is great.