User:Krsmith09/Internal fertilization/Annasweetland 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? Keegan Smith (krsmith09)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Krsmith09/Internal fertilization

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

 * Okay so I think the lead is "Advantages From Internal Fertilization" and I think that pretty much encompasses what you're talking about. Maybe if I had an edit, change it to "Advantages of Internal Fertilization" just like for grammatical reasons but I think you're fine either way. I don't think the lead is either overly detailed or too vague, I think it's a great length.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * The content is definitely relevant to the overall topic of the Wiki article which is internal fertilization. I think it's weird that that wiki page wouldn't have already mentioned the reasons why internal fertilization may be evolutionarily advantageous, so I think the content you're adding is super relevant and necessary!
 * Judging by the dates of the sources in the bibliography, it seems the information is up to date.
 * I like the points you've included, but I think just for consistency in the structure of all three bullet points, for the last point, "Egg protection outside of water" you should include why that's not possible in external fertilization. Like the answer may be obvious, but I think because you contrasted the first two bullet points with external fertilization you should do it for the third one as well.

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

 * I think the content is really natural and in addition to that it's easy to understand. The language isn't too complex or like overly-scientific, so I think someone without much biology background knowledge could clearly understand the points that you're making.
 * I don't think anything seems biased at all
 * I mean I guess you could say the content persuades the reader to see internal fertilization as advantageous over external fertilization, but I'm assuming that your partner (cause it looks like Sammie is your partner?) might cover the disadvantages of internal fertilization, so I'm sure it'll be balanced out. But at the same time it's not like you're persuading the reader to prefer or opt for internal fertilization over external...idk what I'm saying hahaha. I think you're good.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * yes, each bullet point is backed up by a different secondary source
 * the sources are current
 * All of the links from the three references worked for me :)

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

 * yes, yes, and yes
 * I don't see any grammar or spelling issues
 * And yes it's well organized. I don't know if you plan on using bullet points in the actual article or if you're writing it out in like paragraph format, but I like the bullet points and I think they make the info super easy to digest and understand.

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

 * no images or media

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?

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

 * I think the info you added really improves the quality of the article, because before your edits, the previous article really didn't mention external fertilization at all. And I think because they're direct opposites, it's important that they be mentioned in one another's definition. I think for me, as a learner, it's helpful when learning a new phenomenon or term to also learn its antonym, so I think your edits were definitely needed and useful.
 * Strengths: easy to read, concise (short but informative), not repetitive of what is already in the existing article, no grammar or spelling issues.
 * Improvements: I made a couple notes above (possibly changing the from to of in the lead & contrasting external fertilization in your third bullet point)
 * Question: My only question, just out of curiosity, is where are you adding this section? At the very end of the existing article (after the sections on methods and expulsion) or somewhere else?