User:Jtad1998d/Brackish marsh/Dsarah15 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? Jtad1998d
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jtad1998d/Brackish marsh

Overall, this is a great start to your article. All of the content that you have added to your article appears to be relevant and up-to-date. The content in your article also appears to be neutral and unbiased. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, but rather seeks to inform and educate. I like that you covered various different aspects of your topic, such as low marsh areas and high marsh areas, the role of salinity in brackish marshes, and the plants and animals that can be found in brackish marshes. Although you cover a wide array of content, I noticed a couple of grammatical errors in your article. These errors did not significantly hinder my understanding of the article, however, fixing them would give your article a more professional and polished feel. Disregarding the minor grammatical errors, the content of your article is well-written. Although you have provided some information on the animals that inhabit brackish marshes, you could expand on that topic and be more specific. You mention that brackish marshes are home to crabs and small fishes, however, you do not provide their names or any relevant information about them. For example, you could explain why these species of crabs and fish find the conditions of brackish marshes to be so appealing. In other words, what is it about the brackish marsh environment that these animals like? Why do they live here as opposed to a purely freshwater marsh? You could also include a list of the different types of crab and fish species that are found in brackish marshes. You use more detail when talking about the different kinds of plants that occupy brackish marshes. I like how you identify the general categories of plants that live in brackish marshes, such as salt-tolerant vascular plants and herbaceous plants and list some of them. Moreover, I feel that your article could benefit from being broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. This would make your article more organized and easier to follow. For example, you could include sections on low marsh areas and high marsh areas, brackish marsh vegetation, etc. Also, I noticed that you did not cite any credible sources within your article, leaving me unsure of where you obtained your information. This makes me question the validity and reliability of the information included in your article. Lastly, I like that you included pictures in your Wikipedia article. Although these pictures are laid out in a visually appealing way, they are lacking captions. I could tell that the second photo was a depiction of one of the plants you mentioned, but I could not figure out which one it was. Adding concise descriptions to your photos would be very helpful and would greatly enhance my understanding of the topic.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

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?

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?