User:Liliapearljackson/R/K selection theory/Spectral099 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?
 * 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? Describes r-strategists, K-strategists, origin of terminology, history, and criticism/alternate theory
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? lead doesn't mention ecological succession
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The content added to the lead is good, I like putting in the part about environment stability since that's mentioned in the article. Might need a source on the first sentence about cheap/expensive.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? content mentions up to 2002, i dont know if there is more recent information
 * 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? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * 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? no, the theory is explained and then criticisms and recent support for the theory are listed.

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? there are a lot of sources
 * Are the sources current? sources include up to 2019
 * 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? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? content is mostly concise, hard to read in some places
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no grammar or spelling errors i found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? organization makes sense

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? images are examples of species that follow r or k selection
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?