User:Mccalld2/Redback spider/Jsjacobs98 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Arachnura

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It does, it has info on when they were first described and some of their characteristics.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the fact that it is a genus and when it was first described.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead has info on the species but not the name origin. More sections needed to reflect information in lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, most of the information in the lead is not covered in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There are some parts that seem overly specific such as the body proportions and information on certain species.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content all covers the listed genus.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It appears so, there is a reference to April 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Need more information on things such as unique characteristics, their behavior, history and life stages

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Listed content is neutral, no bias or opinions noticed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, information is based on sources and facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some of the species information seems overrepresented. There is info on A. logio and A. feredayi but I'm not sure why that information is placed there or if there is something I'm missing.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the information is factual and concise.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are sources listed when needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, numerous links and sources placed appropriately to highlight information.
 * Are the sources current? I'd say no, 2 of the 3 main sources are from 1863, but the information could still be relevant.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The information is easy to read and concise. However, I wish there were more sections to build upon.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No obvious are distracting errors, there are some spots that might need to have a comma added or taken but one could argue either for most spots.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections are not reflected in the lead because there are not many sections. There needs to be sections on things like behavior and characteristics to get into more detail on what was covered in the lead.

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? It is closer, but I'd say it has a while to go.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information added has the right voice and is unbiased, making the article easy to read while still giving important information.
 * How can the content added be improved? More sections are needed. I want to see much more in depth information on the topic to fully explain different aspects. Maybe explain the different species a bit or the trends seen in this particular genus further.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article is presented well, but still needs more backbone to adequately represent the genus.