User:Invertebratesarespineless/Spongilla lacustris/Cached DNA 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

 * Invertebratesarespineless (<-NOTE: I love it)
 * User:Invertebratesarespineless/Spongilla lacustris

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.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes; however, it looks like there is room to add this information into the habitats and life cycle sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There is a lot of detail. However, this may or may not be appropriate based on how much information is added into the empty aforementioned sections.

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?
 * Missing a few sections including classification, habitats, and life cycle.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. No new sources seem to have been added; however, this could be due to that bug that we discussed in class.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. However, source [2] (http://www.waterwereld.nu/sponge.php) seems a bit out of place for a Wikipedia page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * For the most part. For the Lead, I would suggest using the organism's name a bit more. The Lead sounds quite choppy with "It" and "They" starting with most sentences.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few. When you get the chance, do a read-through and make sure that everything sounds as you want it to. One example of a typo that I found was in the third sentence of your Characteristics section. Sumbiosis -> Symbiosis
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * While there are sections, it might be helpful to re-organize them into an order which the would give the ready a broader to narrow understanding of the organism. For example, you might want to move Characteristics to the top near Classification to give the audience some general understanding.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. While there are images present, I think it might be beneficial to find definite pictures of of the species. Each of these two pictures are captioned starting with, "Possibly Spongilla Lacustris," which doesn't give the best impression to the audience.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * See the aforementioned comment.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It seems though. The two images on this page were posted by a user--Littlebluenick-- in September of 2019. As they were posted as the user's own work, I do think that these images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not necessarily. There is a rather large gap populating a large portion of the page. However, these images may be added to other sections upon completion to minimize the void space.

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?
 * NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * NA
 * 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?
 * NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes. I took a look at the page before Invertebratesarespineless began working on the page. A few improvements have been made to add to this page's completeness, including the Characteristics and Reproduction sections.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added has provided more depth into the page; however, it should be spellchecked and error-checked (note the grammar and periods surrounded by two spaces) as soon as possible. As I mentioned before, I don't see any new sources--however, if you have them and that bug (mentioned in class) is doing its thing, then no worries!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * To improve the added content, I'd suggest doing a read-through for errors and rearranging some of the newly added sections to give the audience a more "top-down" reading experience. While this is entirely up to you, I'd suggest Lead > Characteristics > Classification > Habitats > Reproduction and Life Cycle.
 * Also, it may be wise to find other images that more accurately express the page species. If you can't find these, then the choice is definitely up to you. If you choose to keep these images, I'd suggest adding more to the captions. For example, you could suggest some reason why the pictured organism may be Spongilla lacustris by using some details from the text body in the caption of the picture.