User:Lindsey.Goldsby/Spongia officinalis/Cached DNA 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

 * Lindsey.Goldsby
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lindsey.Goldsby/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.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, but still goes into a bit of depth with reproduction--I think that this information could be limited to "...can reproduce either sexually or asexually," then explain the further methods and larvae under a specified heading.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * A few sources dated back to a very long time ago; however, they were used appropriately. For example, source [1] was from 1953, but it was only giving general information known (and presently consistent) at the time of publishing.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some tabs are missing content; to help you out based on my previous content, I would suggest turning the "Behavior" tab into "Development and Behavior" and including the sexual/asexual reproduction in this tab along with any other behavioral characteristics that you've found.

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?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. To be honest, it's so tricky (for my page as well) to find available literature on some of these aquatic invertebrates. Good choice using articles from Marine Ecology.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Some are dated; however, the information from the dated sources is basic and likely a necessity for an article of this nature. Also, the oldest source has information which has been backed by current sources, thus validating its relevance.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most worked well. Some did not. To help you navigate, the non-working links that I found were in your Sources and started with <485::aid-aqc362>3.0.co;2-n. (See sources [7] and [10])

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?
 * Nothing major! However, there were a few spacing issues. For example, the topic sentence begins with, "Spongia officinalis(Euspongia), better known as..." and there is no space between the species name and the following word in parenthesis. Now I'm no expert on binomial names and yada yada, so if this is meant to be, then please ignore the former. However, also note that some of your in-text citations have a space after the period of the referred sentence. For the sake of consistency, I'd recommend double checking and assuring that they're all consistent.
 * 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?
 * NA
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?.
 * NA

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?
 * NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * NA
 * 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?
 * NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! It looks very good so far.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * This includes a lot more detail--anatomy, morphology, distribution, and habitat.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Just more content and concision within this newly added content will make a great improvement!