User:Jacob.Brock/Beroe Abyssicola/Chelseanav23 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? Jacob.Brock
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jacob.Brock/Beroe Abyssicola

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 includes and introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. It does not include a description of the article's major sections. The lead could use more information, but it well-written thus far.

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
All of the content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The history section is missing information, but it is labeled as a section so I assume it will be added to.

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
Tone is neutral. There is no bias. It is not persuasive, but rather informative.

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
Sources are listed throughout. The end of the description paragraph has a jumble of sources, but I'm sure that those will be organized by the due date. Sources are current and thorough. Sources work.

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
Content is well-written. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The content is broken down into sections that clearly show what is being covered.

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
Article includes one image that is helpful in showing the organism. The organism is captioned. The image adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are laid out in a sensical manner.

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
Article meets notability requirements. Article is supposed by many resources. Article follows the patterns similar articles and includes infoboxes, section headings, images, etc. The article contains links that make it more discoverable.

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
This is a great article with a lot of potential. It needs a little more work, but it is very well-written thus far and contains good information. Maybe considering adding a little more information to each section and maybe one or two more graphics, but overall really well done!