User:Lhughesg/Climax species/Tursiopsaduncus 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?
 * Lhughesg
 * 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?
 * Not in the main article, but in the Sandbox yes.
 * 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?
 * Not really no, but it is a really well-written summary of climax species.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A bit overly detailed, especially with the proposed additions.

==== Lead evaluation - The lead gives a really good description of climax species, but you may want to cut down on it a little or add some of the information to the Content section to improve the structure and organization of the article. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Some of it is current, but some of it is from more than 20 years ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Most of it is yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. Plenty of extensive research papers that are cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of them are, but one of them was published in 1988.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, but I'm not sure if they include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. All of them work.

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?
 * Sources should be cited AFTER each period.
 * "Climax species are plant species that can germinate and grow with limited resources, for example low-sun exposure or water availability." I would replace "for example" with "like"
 * "The presence of climax species can reduce the prevalence of other species and their dominance within species composition in a forest ecosystem is reduced through disturbances, such as fires, storms, or droughts." Split this up into two sentences.
 * "This allows for other species, namely pioneer species, to recolonize and develop the land again, before climax species become prevalent again." No comma needed after "again".
 * "In addition to disturbances promoting species diversity by allowing more pioneer species to develop, the age of a successional ecosystem also increases species diversity." Delete the word "also".
 * "When the pace of succession slows down as a result of ecological homeostasis the maximum permitted biodiversity is reached." Add a comma after "homeostasis".
 * "Due to its ability to adapt to low resource available, stable conditions, it dominates Northern forest ecosystem in the absence of a disturbance." Should it be "ecosystems"?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Somewhat

==== Organization evaluation - The content you added provides great new insight. As of now, the bulk of the information is in the Lead section. You should compensate adding a new section to break up the information and improve the structure of the article. ====

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?

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, definitely. The additions provide new information to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Detailed explanation of climax species and their ecological effects.
 * Draws from a variety of new references.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add to the other examples listed in the article if you can find information on them.
 * Revising run-on sentences.
 * Working on sentence structure to enhance clarity.