User:Kcwins/Population Ecology/Ktjylee Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

kcwins


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kcwins/Population_Ecology?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Population ecology

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.)

General:


 * 1) What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) The sentences and ideas are clear and it's surprising the original article didn't include these details already. I
 * 3) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 4) The structure of the draft is a bit confusing.
 * 5) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 6) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * 7) Viewing the original article from the point of view of a un-knowledgeable reader.
 * 1) Viewing the original article from the point of view of a un-knowledgeable reader.

Lead:


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Yes, provides details that aren't provided in the original article.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * No

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Not sure
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over- or under-represented?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The citations aren't given in the draft, so not sure.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Not sure
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not sure
 * Are the sources current?
 * N/A

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is concise and clear.
 * 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?
 * The organization is a bit choppy, but it may be because I'm not sure where it falls in the original article.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * 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

Overall impressions

 * 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?
 * Definitions of things that may have not been apparent to the audience.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content just needs to work on structure.