User:Luke Slind/Sepia braggi/Avdelfierro 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? (Luke Slind)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Luke Slind/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?
 * 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
Yes, the lead has been reorganized and a little more in-depth than the original article. The introductory sentence concisely and clearly explains what the article is about. I especially like how the common name is included. It helps give a clearer picture of what the topic is about.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added to the topic is relevant and seems up-to-date. In the lead of other invertebrate pages, I have seen classification included in the lead, so phylum, family, class, etc. as a figure in the right-hand side. Having this included will slap the information in the readers face.

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 does a great job remaining neutral and purely descriptive, not persuading the reader in any direction.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Checked out all the references and they cleared out. All the references stay on topic.

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
I think organization of the lead started off well. The last three sentences seem a little out of place. Some of the information presented could be a little less descriptive in the lead and instead, taken out and put into a separate section that the user can expand upon. I did not catch any grammatical or spelling errors, although once the scientific name is used in full once, it can be abbreviated from then on. (S. braggi)

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
No image.

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
Luke Slind did a nice job making the information in the lead more accurate and including things like who discovered the invertebrate. The article has a solid lead section that could have some information taken out and put into its own section and expanded upon further. I think Luke Slind left plenty of room for further additions such as distribution or morphology/description. More sources and an image would greater bolster the strength of the article.