User:Lynamai/Heterophyes heterophyes/Catwood13 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)
 * Lynamai (Lyndsey Rose)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Lynamai/Heterophyes heterophyes

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, it describes the parasite and who discovered it.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I believe so, it mentioned the lifecycle, hosts, and where it can typically found around the world.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. The introduction mentions that definite and intermediate hosts, location, how it was discovered, when, and who discovered it.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but sentences are short/choppy.

Lead evaluation
It's a great intro considering there may not be a lot of info about this parasite. I think that the sentences can be longer and less choppy.

-Egyptian: Was the autopsy performed during mummification? When did this happen? What evidence is there?

-How do humans contract it (unless that part is getting it's own section, ignore)? What type of fish? What region? How do fish get infected?

-The fact that it is the smallest endoparasite can be moved to the first sentence (like "H.heterophyes, one of the smallest.....")

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all the info listed is relevant and necessary.

Content evaluation
I think so far the information is relevant and informative.

Morphology: Sentences are a bit choppy. Maybe add more hyperlinks to other wiki articles for terms that a reader may not be familiar with (i.e. pharynx, flukes, etc).

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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is not biased.

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.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are relevant and recent. They are also scientific articles so there may be access to more sources available.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise but the sentences are choppy and need to be melded together.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There is currently one section but yes.

Organization evaluation
Like said, sentences should be less choppy. The morphology section is very well described!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/a.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/a.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/a.

Images and media evaluation
Images would be nice but aren't important if they aren't documented somewhere.

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?
 * There is more of an introduction for the parasite.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It offers more background of the parasite and what it affects. The original section about morphology did not have sources apparently so the new version is more reliable because of the sources linked.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * What does the parasite do to it's hosts and why is it important for us to research it?
 * What does it feed on, how does it transmit, and how does it enter then live inside the host?

Overall evaluation
Informative and a good article for the little information known about it.