User:Kelseyhicks38/Salmonidae/Emilygabrielle Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kelsey Hicks


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Salmonidae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Kelseyhicks38/Salmonidae

Evaluate the drafted changes
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content that was added is relevant to the topic, expanding on gaps in the original article.

- Is the content added up-to-date?

The content added comes from sources from 2005, so I cannot say that it is current information.

- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

As I am unsure of what specific areas that they plan to expand on, I cannot say what is missing fro their draft. I do think that their draft could be expanded more.

- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, I believe the article to be more complete, given what they have added. It filled in some minor gaps.

- What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths of the content added is the topic of temperature of water - which is especially important in migration of species. Which I was actually surprised was not included in the original article.

- Is the content added well-written?

Content added is clear and easy to read, can be improved upon.

- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There is not any grammatical or spelling errors.

- Is the content added well-organized?

Content added is broken down into sections and organized.

- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

All new content has been backed up by a reliable source of information.

- Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes, all the content accurately reflects what they have stated in the sources.

- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

All the sources that are cited are thorough.

- Are the sources current?

The sources are not current - they date back to 2005. However, I do not know about this topic, so I am not sure if these sources are the most current ones that reflect the topic.

- Is the content added neutral?

Yes, all the content that has been added is neutral.

- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that appear to be biased.

Overall Feedback:

I think it is a good start but can be improved upon. I do not know what you think the gaps are in the article, so I can't really say what you were missing. But I think that there is a lot more you could've added to your draft.