User:Mph105/Lake Waccamaw/Knm027 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) Mph105
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mph105/Lake Waccamaw

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead at the very beginning of the article does not mention anything about endemic species, so this could be added. I think adding the very first sentence that is in the sandbox to the lead would be good.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the lead of the endemic species section is concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think the lead for the main article could be expanded to mention the aquatic life and environmental events.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not include information not present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The leads for both the main article and the endemic species section are both concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think adding some information on the Waccamaw Killifish would be a good addition! That's the only thing I see that is maybe missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The sandbox does mention fish species that have relatively small article pages.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are no viewpoints that are over or under represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there isn't any persuasion attempts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, a lot of the sources available are from the national park service.
 * Are the sources current? A majority are current. The Hubbs and Raney is a bit old, so maybe a newer source could be added in case some of those species have gone extinct.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are relatively diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links for the references work. Adding links to the wiki pages of the fish species would be a good addition.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is very concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The Waccamaw Darter can be identified by their how many scales cover their bodies (Hubbs and Raney 1946). Take out the their so its more grammatically correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think just combining the second and third paragraphs would be good. Otherwise everything is broken up well.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Peer did not add images, but I think adding some would be a great addition!


 * 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. Not a new article!


 * 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? Yes, I think adding information about endemic species helps make the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is concise and straight to the point. Everything is sourced well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just the few things that I mentioned in the rest of the peer review, otherwise the content is good!