User:Lhughesg/Climax species/Kitbrooks 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)
 * --> Lhughesg's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * --> User:Lhughesg/Climax species

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
--> The additions to the article begin very early on, and I think that the lead is fine the way it is without any changes to the lead. The lead is concise and has a good amount of information without being over detailed. Furthermore, the lead has a description of the articles major sections as well. All information in the lead was discussed in the article.

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 added to the article is very relevant to the topic. It is up to date, and fits in well with the article. I don't think there is any content that is missing or that doesn't belong besides the photos that are going to be added in later. This article does not deal with Wiki equity gaps.

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 added is neutral and has very good sources. No claims apper to be heavily biased toward a particular position. As a scientific article addition, I don't think there were any differing viewpoints needed to be added which weren't. No persuasion is used in the additional content.

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
--> I think there should be a secondary source for the last sentence of the first paragraph. Other than that, there are good sources in the right areas. All sources were thorough and current. I am not sure about marginalized individuals in terms of the authors of the sources. The links work fine!

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 added is well-written. It is concise, and easy to read. There are no spelling errors as far as I could tell. I think a few of the sentences are a little long and could be cut down. Sections are well-organized and reflect major points!

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
--> There are no images or media added to the article. However, the individual did say that they were going to add images to the article.

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 adding some images would be a great way to strengthen the addition. I do think that these added sections help to further complete the original article. The introduction of both of your additions were very strong and well written.