User:Mneschbach/Wolbachia pipientis/Nmeckel13 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)  Mneschbach
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mneschbach/Wolbachia pipientis

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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is the only part with information. So far it is a good start to the article and more content must be added.

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? There is a lot of content that is missing. The article needs to have more content added.

Content evaluation
The content that has been added is good, it tells the reader what the article will be about but more work is needed.

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 content added does not have any bias to it and it appears neutral. The rest of the article should be similar to this once the rest of the sections are added.

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? Most of them.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Only one source is old whereas the other two are relatively up to date. Hopefully more sources can be found that are current.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is not enough content added to be broken down into sections.

Organization evaluation
The content that is there is well organized but like before there is not enough content to accurately review.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is a video that was added.
 * Are images well-captioned? It is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images. The video could be placed into a section it goes with instead of at the top of the article.

Images and media evaluation
There is only one video in the article so far and it could be placed in a better spot once the article has more content.

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? No.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

New Article Evaluation
There are 3 sources but there needs to be more sources so there are more viewpoints of the topic. There also needs to be more added from each source and more sources can provide more content. The article needs to be formatted better, infoboxes like a species box and section headings need to added.

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
Overall the article is very bare in terms of content. There was not a lot of content to review but what was added was good. It is a new article so it is understandable that there might not be much information out there. So far it looks like the article is going in the right direction and it can be improved by adding more content to fill out different sections and by formatting to look more like a Wikipedia article.