User:JacquelineYY22/Ascodesmis nigricans/Angelajhyb Peer Review

Peer review
Peer Review by: Jihyeun Angela Baek (Angelajhyb)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? JacquelineYY22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JacquelineYY22/sandbox

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?

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 your content seems relevant to your fungus species and covers multiple aspects of your fungus species - well done!

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:
Good work on making your content have a neutral tone!

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:
Great job on backing up all your facts with a reliable source!

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:
'''Nice job writing your outline - you've got great headings to your sections, your outline is very well-organized, and your grammar and spelling is okay. Please make sure to go over the grammar and spelling, such as double-checking punctuation, maintaining a uniform verb tense overall, and spellings of words! Maybe after double-checking the grammar and spelling, your writing will flow much better and become easier to read!'''

Some edits you may consider:

- How about using the word "can" instead of "could" for "Ascodesmis nigricans is a coprophilic fungus that could be isolated from the dung of various animals."?

- How about using the word "grows" instead of "grew" for "Ascodesmis nigricans exclusively grew at 24°C instead of 10°C or 37.5°C on plate under artifial condition."?

- We need quotation marks for "becoming black" in "The entymology of A. nigricans is from Latin Nigricans, which means becoming black."

- Watch out for a few typos here and there like "reserachers" and "speice".

- One more thing - I think the word "species" stays the same for both plural and singular.

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:
N/A.

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:
Great job managing to find a good amount of reliable secondary sources, and on your infobox and section headings!

If there are any existing Wikipedia articles that you can add a link to various key terms or ideas in your article, please do so!

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?