User:Jordannstone/Aeolidia papillosa/Emlamm 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?
 * Jordannstone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Aeolidia papillosa

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes I believe so.
 * 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?
 * There's a table of contents, but other than that no.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's very concise at 2 sentences. It could use some grammar review.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content makes sense with a species wikipedia page
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The oldest reference article the author uses is from 2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Seems like more of an outline at the moment, but I'm sure the author intends to do more with it

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Worded in a way that sounds neutral. Nothing sounds like it's making an argument
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There's only 3 sources at the moment
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not finished, so I'm sure the author will add more references
 * Are the sources current?
 * Oldest one is from 2016, which is only from 4 years ago
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Concise and clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I'd adjust the grammar in the second sentence of the intro.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the author has 3 sections other than the references. I'd suggest having more

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There's a picture included in the classification table
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The only picture is in the classification table, so it doesn't really have a caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I couldn't find a reference for the photo's origin
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I definitely think there could be some more sources
 * 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?
 * I think there should be more than 3 sections
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * It's semi-complete. There's info in each section, but not completed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Visually pleasing
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Finish each section