User:Mitra002/Symbiosis/LeahWodajo1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Mitra002


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Symbiosis


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Symbiosis

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Hi Mikayla! Here's my peer review for you,

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Given that I couldn't find "an original article" on symbiosis, I believe that your article is originally written and follows the wikipedia guidelines



Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - I think that the word choices (i.e. " may also exist over other 'amenities'..", "can be", "generally" etc) kept the article neutral and no objective statements were made on the topic of symbiosis and examples of symbiosis that weren't backed up by sources
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Some but not all. Here's some examples from your sandbox draft where I think citations might be useful to improve the article:


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them?
 * Are the sources current? -
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Y
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) -

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think the article is very well organized and the sequence of topics is written in an order that makes sense; the table of contents makes it easy to follow along
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - ^

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? -
 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Yes there is a large amount of reliable sources in the references/bibliography sections; (may be wrong) but I do think the bibliography has to be annotated? The sources have to be given a brief description in your own words and I didn't see that
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?

-Leah