User:Nansimonious/Haller's organ/Yadukulakambhoji Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nansimonious


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nansimonious/Haller%27s_organ?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Haller's organ

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?
 * For the most part. The physiology section is not well represented in the lead, but the author could easily add a few words about how the exact mechanism is unknown.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is reasonably concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?'
 * It appears to be up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article is not related to underrepresented people or topics, it's about ticks

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Mostly. There is a claim about a study from 1970 which is not backed up with any citation and there is no reference from 1970.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * For the most part. When I log in through the school, the first source (Foelix et al. 1972) is not accessible to me beyond the abstract. I do not know if the author has accessed the source through other means but there are citations attributed to that source, such as the information about the history of study, which I cannot verify. The other sources back up what the author claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are only four sources on the article and it seems that there is more literature available.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Except for one source, all are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Appear to be from a diverse set of authors
 * 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.)
 * All sources used are from peer reviewed scientific journals. The author could use more sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't notice anything which interfered with understanding the article. There were a few minor errors but nothing which couldn't be fixed with closer readings.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes - it's easy to see why each section was added and they do a nice job of covering different aspects of the topic

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The original article has almost no information, so the added content greatly improves the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content expands the original article by adding in-depth information on the different aspects of the organ which were not mentioned in the original article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the author could add more content to a few of the sections, especially the sections on physiology, thermotaxis, and anatomical structure. Also the author should add sources for the anatomical structure section.