User:Goobglorp/Planktivore/Taguzman1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Goobglorp


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Goobglorp/Planktivore


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Planktivore

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead Guiding, questions:

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

·       Yes

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

·       Yes, it is very concise

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

·       There is not a brief description of the major sections, but it doesn’t seem relevant as a part of this section. It flows well

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

·       Yes, this section includes a new concept to the reader.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

·       It might be that since we just went over this topic there seems to be gaps in specific details. The article seems a bit choppy and doesn’t flow from beginning to end.

Content Guiding, questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

·       Yes, absolutely

Is the content added up-to-date?

·       Yes, it appears to be

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

·       It feels like there is some details missing about which specific nutrient are affected by the mussels. Are their other types of planktivory besides mussels?

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

·       Only if those underrepresented populations are mussels.

Tone and Balance, Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

·       Yes, it is

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

·       Nope

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

·       Not really clear which nutrient alter the environment or exactly how they impact the

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

·       No, it is purely a descriptive article

Sources and References, Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

·       Yes, there were 13 scientific articles referenced

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Are the sources current?

·       Yes, seven of the thirteen sources were less than 5 years old.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

·       Yes, but I don’t know about any historically marginalized individuals

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Check a few links. Do they work?

·       Yes, the links that I checked all worked

Organization, Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

·       It is written in an easy-to-read style.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

·       None that I noticed

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

·       As previously mentioned, the article seems a bit choppy and doesn’t flow from beginning to end.

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

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

·       Yes, there is an image of the Quagga Mussel included

Are images well-captioned?

·       Yes, yes is provides the scientific and common name and also includes a description of what the read is seeing.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

·       Yes, I think it does

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

·       Yes, it was good to see the organism being discuss. It didn’t distract for the article in any way.

For New Articles Only (NOT APPLICABLE)

Overall impressions, Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

·       I think this is a very good topic to include in the overall discussion about Planktivory.

What are the strengths of the content added?

·       It brings a new awareness to the readers about the effect of planktivory on the environment

How can the content added be improved?

·       Additional details on the specific nutrients and possibly more examples of how different types planktivory can make an impact. Is there any positive impacts?

·       The additional information may help the article flow better.