User:Kevinbr41/Hippopus Hippopus/Vreddy226 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kevinbr41

Gcharles1357


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

Lead:


 * 1) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence is good but the sentence regarding the species being a delicacy in South Asian countries seems out of place.
 * 2) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not. It only provides a sentence regarding what the species is and the origin of the species’ name.
 * 3) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise but more information is needed within the lead.

Content:

Tone and Balance
 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, so far of what I have seen all the information is relevant to the topic of Hippopus hippopus. However, I would make the Distribution and Habitat section more concise and add more relevant information as a lot of the sentences start with the species name and are repetitive sounding.
 * 2) Is the content added up-to-date? From what I see in terms of the dates of the references, I would try to stray away from articles prior to the 1990s-2000s. Most of the references used relatively new however some are from prior to these years.
 * 3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No all the content is well organized and does belong to the article. That one sentence within the lead regarding this species being a delicacy in Asia however should be taken out.

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Is the content added neutral? Yes, the added content is neutral and does not portray any sort of persuasive nature.

Organization

Sources and References:
 * 1) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, added is extremely easy to read. All the sections except Distribution and Habitat and Development are concise and well written. Within the Distribution and Habitat rewording is needed as it is very repetitive sounding. In regards to the Development section it seems as if this section was just separated from the reproduction section. If there was a sentence prior to the first sentence included in order to introduce the section, it would be much better.
 * 2) Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling or grammatical errors.
 * 3) Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is well organized. All the sections chosen describe the species very well.

Sources and References:


 * 1) Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.):  Yes the content accurately summarizes what the authors of the cited sources intended perfectly!
 * 2) Are the sources current? Most sources are prior to 2000s so I would try looking for sources that are a little bit more current.
 * 3) Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? There could be better sources found in lieu of the last two websites in the reference section as these websites barely provide any information on the species as a whole.
 * 4) Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links do work!

Images and Media:


 * 1) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes these images are helpful in understanding what the species looks like.
 * 2) Are images well-captioned? I would elaborate a little bit more within the image captions especially within the first two out of the three pictures located at the top. Maybe add something in terms of what makes the two shells different or some reason as to why you included the second picture of the shell.
 * 3) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes they do
 * 4) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Consider adding each of the three images at the top of the article within the sections rather than in a row at the top. It looks a little weird having them in a horizontal block like that maybe have one of the pictures kept there at the top and place one of the other pictures within the Morphology section and the picture of the shell seen from above within the Distribution section.