User:IndiPink0117/Asparagopsis armata/Nlapunzi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

IndiPink0117 and Sunny2000kim


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IndiPink0117/Asparagopsis_armata?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it seems like new information has been added that give a good broad description of the species.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, they give the name and family of the species.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not, so this has room for improvement.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything covered in the lead if covered in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise, yet detailed enough to give an understanding of what the article is about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the sections are relevant to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can tell, all of the information is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think anything is missing as they touched on all the major topics.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so but maybe?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Very neutral and very straightforward I think.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not believe so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Just to learn more about other marine species.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they have multiple sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) From what I can tell from the papers, they do.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are all resourceful for this topic.
 * Are the sources current? Most are from within the past century so I would argue yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I have no idea how they picked these authors.
 * 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.) I got all the same sources as them when I researched this so I would say no.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very straightforward.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The different sections are well portioned out.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The image helps visualize the life cycle.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are on the right side, not sure where else they could put them.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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, the article is very good and way more detailed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very detailed with interested topics such as the "invasive species" section.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just a quick grammatical check, other than that it was really good.