User:Nansimonious/Haller's organ/ZombieManF 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?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead

 * The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content, which retains its briefness while also giving a decently good understanding of Haller’s organ to those that only read it. The introductory sentence has not changed, and the rest of the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article, nor is it overly detailed, although it is more detailed than in the original article.

Content

 * The content is definitely relevant to the topic, providing much more information to an article that was literally only the Lead in its original form. Based on the sources it is mostly up to date, with most cited articles hailing from either 2017 or 2019. There is one old article, that being Foelix’s from 1972, but it is not cited often and is detailed in its information. There does not appear to be content that does not belong, and the article does not appear to have any content missing.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral and does not appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position, with all content solely being factual. It does directly call out its sources in the material, by saying things such as “Carr's 2019 study demonstrated” and “A 2017 study to elucidate,” which is something that I would personally not do, but it is not inherently wrong and does not display bias in the writing.

Sources and References

 * All content is backed up by reliable secondary sources, which (at least the ones I could view) are all peer reviewed articles. The one article I could not view was Foelix’s article “Ultrastructure of Haller's organ in the tick Amblyomma americanum (L.)” from 1972, since it was locked behind a paywall of $40 and would not let me view the full pdf through UCONN. However, the link itself worked, as did the links for all of the other sources. The sources (that I could view) were thorough, and the content discussed information that actually came from those sources.

Organization

 * The content is well-written and concise, allowing understanding even to those who have never heard of it before. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I could see, and the content is well organized. One section ended up being larger than the other sections, that being “Chemosensation,” but it does not affect organization and does not need to be broken into smaller sections.

Overall impressions

 * Overall, the content has significantly improved what was originally a quite bare-bones article. It describes Haller’s organ in more detail without going over the top, and still allows for casual readers to understand it.