User:Liliapearljackson/R/K selection theory/Mcox19 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)
 * liliapearljackson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Liliapearljackson/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes!!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, and the use of colloquialisms brings the reader in very nicely, it makes the article as a whole seem more accessible
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yea, the bit you added shows up in the ecosuccession section
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * your part Could be pared down a little but i think it could also function as is

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yep
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * considering that the whole theory is considered somewhat outdated i think it is up-to-date to the topic
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * nah your part really is filling a gap in the lead
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * it does not really but i think that's fine

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * implies that some offspring are expendable which could be considered not neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * it honestly seems like you're a little biased toward K type parents but it's not That noticeable
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * nope
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * i don't think so but only because there's no real position to be biased toward, you're just stating facts. but be careful about "shaming" r parents over K parents

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * that's the main problem is you have NO citations in your paragraph. where is your info coming from???
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * the first two sources seem more like summaries/lesson plans than anything else, but the third one seems pretty thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * again only one has a date, bu it is from just last year, so would be considered current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * only one of your sources has an author, who is in fact a woman, so you are including "historically marginalized individuals"
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * all links work but really like i think the biggest problem with your sections is the citations, once you get them done i think it will be better. make sure you're careful about citing i saw you used quotes !!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * like i said above, could be more concise but it's very easy to read overall
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * nope
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * there's only one section but like your first sentence seems a little disjointed from the rest of the paragraph? the last two sentences are fully about the environmental influence but the first sentence is about like the colloquialisms of the theory, i would add another little sentence after the first one to connect the two parts.

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!! this improves the lead which previously didn't mention environmental influence
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * it is accessible to the general public, it provides useful information, it's placed appropriately
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * could be more concise, needs a connector between the two separate ideas you're presenting