User:Laj1032/Brook trout/Patrickdoleary Peer Review

In your bibliography, I would explain what each source was used for.

I would try to make sure that you are remaining neutral, there are some times where you can seem a little one sided on how the Brook Trout effect the ecosystem. Otherwise, based on the rubric I say you have most of the information required and you present it well. The article has a lot of information already and I think your contributions were meaningful.

General info
Laj1032
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Laj1032/Brook trout
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Brook trout

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No- there is no mention of invasiveness inside of the introduction.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but more could be added regarding life cycles.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead goes somewhat too much into detail regarding locations, when the article goes into it after.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Somewhat- I believe you could be a little more neutral when speaking of invasiveness.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, following a brief review, all citations seem to be from valuable and reliable journals.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.  Some sources are ~20 years old but still seem to be factual information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The majority of information is from peer-reviewed articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article was easy to understand even as someone who is not well versed in fishing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the information added was helpful in gaining an understanding on the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The author did a great job talking about the life cycles of brook trout.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would continue to try to introduce more neutral language.