User:Ireneayala99/Thelenota anax/Ehaught 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? Ireneayala99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ireneayala99/Thelenota anax

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * 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? No, so just add a brief sentence about each heading/section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is not very much information in the lead so far to tell.

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? Yes, there is a description and habitat information missing along with some lead sentences.

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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content is not persuasive.

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
The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. All sources reflect the literature and are current. The links need to be cited using the "cite" tab found at the top of the page during editing. You can click on it, there will be an option to hit "manual", "automatic", or "reuse", (personally i do automatic and copy and paste link into the bar) and then it will cite the source for you.

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 content added is well-written. "T.anax" needs to be fixed throughout the paragraphs and at the beginning "Thelenota anax". The content added is well-organized and broken down into sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * 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 no image/media available for review.

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

New Article Evaluation
The article has 4 reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are 4 sources need 8 more, but they all represent literature on the subject. The article follows the patterns of other similar articles. The article links 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, still needs more information. Overall, looks good.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The
 * How can the content added be improved? A description of the organism and where it could be found could be added to improve.

Overall evaluation
Yes, the article still needs more information but it looks good so far. The strengths are the sources and information found on the medicinal properties of your organism. A description of the organism and where it could be found could be added to improve the article.