User:Kimchaem/Curvularia geniculata/Angelajhyb Peer Review

Peer review
Peer Review by: Jihyeun Angela Baek (Angelajhyb)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Kimchaem
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kimchaem/sandbox

Lead
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?

Lead evaluation:
We are missing a lead. '''I'm not sure if because this was just supposed to be an outline that you didn't write a separate introductory paragraph, but a brief introduction to your fungus species would be a great start to your article! For instance, providing us with a brief profile on your fungus species at the very beginning that includes some of its most key or unique points and details summarized would be very helpful!'''

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?

Content evaluation:
'''Your content covers multiple aspects regarding your fungus species! You've included a lot of facts under each section. All of your content seems relevant to your fungus species.'''

'Under "Distinction", you've mentioned another fungus species, Curvularia lunata''. Is there a reason why you've included this section and this species in your outline? If you could add why this species is relevant to your fungus species, that would be very helpful! (E.g., is it a closely-related species?)'''

Fantastic job on finding all this information on your fungus species and summarizing it clearly for us!

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?

Tone and balance evaluation:
Good work on making your content have a neutral tone!

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Great job on backing up all your facts with a reliable source!

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?

Organization evaluation:
'''Your grammar and spelling is good! Make sure to check one more time for proper punctuation!'''

'''But most of all, lovely job on your writing throughout your outline - considering the loads of information you've provided us, it is clear, concise and easy to understand! You've done a wonderful job breaking down the main sections further into smaller subsections, which is very helpful. This made it very easy to digest all the facts you've presented us with about your fungus species!'''

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?

Images and media evaluation:
N/A.

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?

New Article Evaluation:
==== '''Great job managing to find a good amount of reliable secondary sources, and on your infobox and section headings! You've also went ahead and linked any existing Wikipedia articles to some key terms or ideas in your article - great!''' ====

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?

==== Overall evaluation: Amazing work, my dear! You've done a lot of research for your outline and I especially want to commend you on your "Pathogenicity" section - it is very organized and informative! Content-wise, I think you've covered your fungus species very well. Moving forward, adding a lead paragraph and double-checking grammar would be a great start to your revising process. ====