User:Jderrico2022/Bathymodiolus thermophilus/Jewellha Peer Review

Peer review:

Lead


 * N/A

Content


 * The information added is relevant to the topic. The student added information on the distribution and density of the organism using two different scientific papers.
 * The content is generally up to date, from 2004-2008. These articles are not more than 20 years old so they are generally newer but maybe there could be a more recent source added (if there are any relevant papers available).
 * There does not seem to be any irrelevant information added.
 * I don't think the article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * Although the content added is specifically from two scientific authors it seems neutral and does not promote any one bias.
 * I do not think the information added is biased.
 * There are not any under/over-represented points of view.
 * The content is not persuasively written so it is not leading a reader in any particular direction.

Sources and References


 * All of the work is appropriately cited and attributed to reliable sources.
 * The content is accurately represented.
 * The sources are thorough.
 * The sources are generally recent (2004/2008).
 * There were a variety of authors added.
 * The links do work.

Organization


 * All of the information added was added to relevant sections, and there seems to be good organization in the article.
 * There are no grammar/spelling issues that I saw.

Images and media


 * N/A

For new articles only


 * N/A

Overall impressions


 * All of the added information was relevant to the topic, and made the article more informative. I think these were appropriate edits, the only improvement I could suggest is newer articles, but it is also true that some areas of DSB are very niche and have relatively few new articles, so as long as the information hasn't since been refuted I think it is appropriate.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)