User:Fernlord24/Auxarthron californiense/JacquelineYY22 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): Fernlord24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fernlord24/sandbox

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
The Lead really did a good job to give the readers an idea what's article about. It contains a introductory sentence of Auxarthron californiense. But there are some concepts elaborated below are not contained in the Lead. The Lead berifly introduces the distrubution and habitat of the fungus, but detailed information are not provided under the Habitat and ecology section. The Lead is concise and clear.

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?

Content evaluation
This article introduces Auxarthron californiense in four aspects, and make the content abundent. It may be better if you adjust the heading of Growth and morphology to Growth, since you introduced the growth and reproduction of the fungus in detailed under this section. You also setted an Apperance part to describe the morphology, so this adjustment may make your structure more organized.

In addition, it would be great, if you add more information about the distrubution and ecology role of Auxarthron californiense to enrich the section of Habitat and ecology.

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
The content's position is neutral and there is no bias within the article. However, since you used the first reference seven times, many content may come from the same perspective and thus make your article imbalanced.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are 7 references used to support the content in total, which is a little bit less than expected. You should add more reference to enrich the diverstiy of your article. Also, it would be better if you add the link for each reference you found and then the readers could access them more convenient to get the information they need. There exits some coding problem and thus the reference part is not well-organized.

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
The content you add is concise and easy to understand, except the growth and morphology part misses the concept about morphology, others are great. Overall, the content are well- organized.

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
It may be difficult to find available photo. But images could help you to illustrate your idea effciently and enhance audience's understanding of the concepts, so it would be best you could add some images into your article.

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
The article is supported by serval reliable journal articles, the list of sources is very exhaustive, but more aspects of the fungi could be introduced, such as the physiology and pathogenicity etc. It has the common patterns of othe similar articles and images will be much helpful if you could find some.

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
Overall speaking, this article did very well to give readers a gerneral understanding of Auxarthron californiense from servel aspects. It provided a Lead part that give a brief idea about the topic but also could be improved to cover the key points you illustrate later in ther article. The specific content is divided into four parts which are History and taxonomy, Growth and morphology, Appearance and Habitat and ecology. The section of morphology and appearance could be adjusted to let the structure become more well-organized. More information may should be added to enrich the section habitat and ecology. The references used to support above content are reliable, yet more references could be used to enhance the diversity of the article.