User:Lbenedict/Siphonophorae/Gcicione 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) Lbenedict
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lbenedict/Siphonophorae

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, at least for the first couple main sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It seems adequately detailed without being overwhelming or giving away too much

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the lure info could be added to the general morphology for the species. Probably too much to add for the perdition/bioluminescence part
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes all of the additions are from recent papers
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Could use more pictures to describe the bioluminescence features of individual species, if available. Also, the body plans/morphology could use an image so that readers can visualize the descriptions
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I think all of the information would be valuable in terms of its contribution to the article overall
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, purely informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the ones being cited at least.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The main authors are not a very diverse group, however there are female authors
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most of them do. The DOI on reference 6 did not, and there are probably others

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No but it hasn't been copied/implemented into the actual article yet
 * 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? Yes, could have more
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adds detail to parts of the article that are lacking, like bioluminescence and the evolutionary hypothesis
 * How can the content added be improved? Make sure it goes into the right subcategory as to not overwhelm readers