User:Hmc442/Vacuum activity/JanuarytheCalico 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? Hmc442
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hmc442/First Draft of Article

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 has been updated to reflect the new content added. You may also want to add a sentence to clarify whether vacuum activity is widespread in the animal kingdom or specific to certain groups (elude to examples in later section). The introductory sentence is concise and easy to understand. Not all of the major sections are described in the Lead. The lead includes relevant information and nothing that is not included in the article.

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
The added content is relevant to the topic. More references need to be added to determine whether the information is up to date. All of the content belongs in the article. More information needs to be added to discuss the development of the theory and how the theory has been implemented in studies throughout history.

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
All of the content is neutral. There is no bias present and no attempts to persuade.

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
Not all of the content is backed up by sources. The link for the source that is cited works and is relevant to the topic.

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 added content is concise, clear, and easy to read. The grammar and spelling is great. The article is appropriately 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
No images have been added yet.

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
This is not a new article.

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
The article is more detailed and better organized than it was previously. The information is easy to understand and would be helpful to readers without knowledge of the subject. I would expand on the history section, explain how the theory has been used (what has been contributed to the literature/why is this an important topic), and add in references, especially for the examples. Great work!! JanuarytheCalico (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)