User:Emw3181/Amplexus/Ethologyisfun31 Peer Review

General info

 * I am reviewing Emw3181
 * Link: User:Emw3181/Amplexus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The leading paragraph has been developed with new content by Emw3181.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It provides a lot more information than before on what the concept behind Amplexus is. A little too much information in the introduction. Some information should be moved to another section later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It doesn't necessarily state what organisms are described in later sections. This should be changed to include what types of organisms a reader can find this behaviour in.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information in leading paragraph is represented in the articles, but a portion of the introduction should be moved to a major section heading to have the article make more sense.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed.

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? The content added is relevant to the topic. More content can be included that is more recent but is overall well done.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? A couple terms incorporate bias but overall is fairly neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear to be heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints are over-represented or under-represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No persuasion appears to be present. Fairly factually based.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? New content is backed up by references/citations in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources selected reflect the article topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources' date range is fairly broad considering there were only a few sources incorporated. Overall, there were a couple that were recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Other than the introduction, which is overly-detailed, the material appears to be concise and easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No obvious grammatical/spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The "Horseshoe Crab" section should be broken down into a major section that labels the Horseshoe Crab's class in order to resemble the major section "Amphibians".

Images and Media- Not applicable.
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?

For New Articles Only- Not applicable. Edited Article.
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
Overall evaluation

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has provided more insight on the physiological functions of the topic "Amplexus".
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength of the added content includes providing physiological insight of the behavioural process of Amplexus.
 * How can the content added be improved? The introduction should be broken down into another major section labelled as "Physiological Structures/Functions" rather than incorporating this material into the introduction; the introduction should be more vague. The major section headings should be edited (add Horseshoe Crab's class as a major section similar to "Amphibians", and then incorporate it into the introduction.