User:Jasminesexton/Echinaster/Brigv713 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) jasminesexton
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Echinaster

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Sandbox shows link that would provide more info for lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?Current sentence tells minimum information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? it does not yet but based off the sources put into sandbox im guessing it will


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? not currently cause it just says a sentence and the species
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is currently only one sentence. concise! but more needed (sources will give it more mush)

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? not blatantly ~missing~ i do not know what the article will look like once the sources are put into words! As of now there is need of more content. Habitat is good!!!!!1

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes all willst be neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? not that i see
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no no persuasion

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? unknown yet - sandbox sources still need to be put into words but im guessing yes
 * Are the sources current? absolutely
 * Check a few links. Do they work? indeed

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? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes sections are good! informative!

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

n/a she has not added any ~herself~ only pic is from the original page


 * 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?

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? not significant coverage at the moment. but i know it will be
 * 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 yes the sections and headings are very helpful and are sorted off like other wiki articles! informative!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? good topic!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?