User:Hberna4/Rainbow trout/SDuncan123 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? Hberna4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hberna4/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead in the sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Lead evaluation
N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all information on the topic is relevant and concise.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
This student added excellent content to this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all claims are supported with evidence.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Only neutral information is stated.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Two sources are cited under references, but only one is used the article addition.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the article used is from the Journal of Physiology and does a thorough job of covering the exercising/reproducing tradeoffs.
 * Are the sources current? About 10 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are five authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Only one source is used, but it looks to be a credible and relatively recent source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes - very easy to follow and understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is no topic mentioned and the location in which this will be added to the article is not given.

Organization evaluation
The topic and location in which the content will be added to the article needs to be stated.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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, there is no previous discussion of the exercising/reproducing tradeoffs in the article yet.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Firstly, it adds new content that is backed with scholarship from the Journal of Physiology. It is clearly and concisely written.
 * How can the content added be improved? The topic and placement of the content were not stated.

Overall evaluation
''It was clearly and concisely written. The topic and placement of the content need to be added.''