User:Nlapunzi/Cellana exarata/Sunny2000kim Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nlapunzi


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nlapunzi/Cellana_exarata?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, information that give a good description of the species has been added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, they give the name and family of the species.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, however it does lack a bit of information compared to the overall article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise but I think more can be added to it.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the sections are relevant to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It seems like so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think there are any missing contents but I think that more sections could be added for more information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it adds detail to a species that was underrepresented before.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are equally well represented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not contain a particular opinion but is rather informative.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they have multiple sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, it seems so although I think that more citations could be added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are all resourceful for this topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, two of them are from last year and one is from 2008/
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think so- they all see to come from different backgrounds.
 * 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.) I don't think so as all sources that they included are peer-reviewed and well informative.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very straightforward.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors. (Make sure to capitalize species names)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The different sections are well portioned out.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Mostly yes but some of them lack description/detail.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, their descriptions match the sections they are in.

For New Articles Only[edit]
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I think that more sources could be added, but great start!
 * 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? Yes, it contains all information of most other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it links to the family the species is in.

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Although I cannot see the article before the new information, the current article seems well written and complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very informative and easy to read. It also seems very interesting and appealing to the readers.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that grammatical/spelling errors, more descriptive captions and more sources could be added.