User:Kimchaem/Curvularia geniculata/JacquelineYY22 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? (provide username) : Kimcheam
 * 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
You didn't give your article a Lead. Lead could give your audience a general understanding of the fungus and summarize the key points you want to elaborate later, so it's best to have one. Lead should be brief but involve an introduction sentence and the points you think are critical for your topic.

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
Overall the contents are exhaustive, it covered lots of aspects of Curvularia geniculata. I really like your introduction of the Pathogenicity of this fungus. You separted the concepts inside this topic into three sublevel group, this well-organized structure let audience to understand the content smoothly and easily.

For the growth and morphology part, it may be good if you could elaborate the reproduction process and stage(like the germination) more detailed. Also, could you briefly introduce the ecology role of this fungus under the habitat and ecology part?

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
The content's position is neutral and there is no bias within the article. You had 12 references and almost equally used them to support the concept. It's great.

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
There are 12 reliable references are used to support your article, all of them are either book or journal article. The reference part is well-organized and all the links do work. It will be great if you could add more references in order to increase the diversity of your concepts related to Curvularia geniculata.

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
The content is well-organized, concise and easy to read. There does not exist any grammaticl or spelling errors.

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
Images may could be found in Wikipidia Common, an image could help your description and enhance the the understanding of audience to your topic.

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
You have several reliable resources to support your article and the list of sources is abundent. It will be great if you could improve more reference to give some detailed introduction of the growth of this fungus and more information about the reproduction stage. It lacks a Lead part and images to help his illustration. It begun to set link on some key words and it is 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall speaking, this article really did very well to introduce Curvularia geniculata to the readers. The structure is very clear and well-organized. The author emphasized the Pathogenicity of this fungi and also describe other features included taxonomy, growth, morphology, physiology,ecology, habitat and industrial use. Therefore, through this article, readers can quickly learn about this fungus and get the information they need. It would be better, if you could add more references to enrich the content of the article.