User:JanuarytheCalico/Interlocus sexual conflict/Jpritch29 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? (provide username) JanuarytheCalico
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:JanuarytheCalico/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has been.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not. Major sections include: Theory development,Versus intralocus sexual conflict, In Scatophaga stercoraria and Dropsohila melanogaster.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The lead includes information about egg vs sperm production that is not touched upon in any other sections of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead briefly explains many subtopics contained within the topic of Interlocus of sexual conflict. While there is a lot of information included in the lead, it is not over detailed in my opinion.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, while some references were from the late 1990's the majority of references were from 2003 or later.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think that the article is a very complete overview of Interlocus of sexual conflict. The section Versus intralocus sexual conflict may not be completely necessary, but does not take away from the article, as adds a broader scope to the topic. It may be possible to just include the information stating that most examples of sexual conflict to not fall into the categories of interlocus of sexual conflict or intralocus of sexual conflict.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no biases present in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All sections are well developed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is no attempt at persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the newly added content is very well referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are sources from multiple different backgrounds, including ecology, evolution, and genomics.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most sources are from 2003 or later.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I checked work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well-organized. There is a main heading for theories, with subsections of models of interlocus sexual conflict and interlocus contest evolution. This facilitates reading and comprehension in my opinion.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no image added.
 * 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

For New Articles Only
Not applicable for this article.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The newly added content provides a much more in depth assessment of Interlocus of sexual conflict, including theories behind the phenomenon and two well developed examples.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Complex biological phenomenon were explained in a manner that was very easy to understand. The article was easy to follow overall.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would suggest either removing the information about intralocus sexual conflict, and just providing a link to the page concerning intralocus conflict. If this information is deemed necessary I would change the title "Versus intralocus sexual conflict" to "Interlocus sexual compact compared to Intralocus sexual conflict"

Overall evaluation
I think this is a very thorough and well written contribution to a topic that seems relatively complex. Good job!