User:Nmeckel13/Parascaris univalens/Bellamorphosis Peer Review

Peer review
Hi, I found this review paper you can use. It’s called: The Occurrence, Role and Evolution of

'''Chromatin Diminution in Nematodes. I can send it to your email but I'm not sure who this is.'''

General info

 * Nmeckel13
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nmeckel13/sandbox

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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added was relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, there's a few reference papers however, some are not review papers. I am not sure if you can use papers like that. I may be wrong so can you please check?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is content missing: the description and treatment of the parasite. Also, you can include genetics/ molecular information about the parasite.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is generally neutral but there is one line that has me questioning. Its the line: "However, new genomic research suggests that both Parascaris species could be the same species."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The claim that may be slightly biased is the line: "However, new genomic research suggests that both Parascaris species could be the same species."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe you can expound on the environmental conditions that favor the parasite and the other subtopics.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is quite neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the information is very thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are recent, from 2014 to 2019 with one exception from 1952.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links to every reference work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few errors: Correction under lifecycle: A protein layer surrounding most of the eggs enables them to stick to vertical surfaces and even to the hair and udder or a mare. OR of a mare? Foals are especially susceptible to infection because they like to explore the environment with their mouths, and when they are weaning of?? / weaning off ?? their mothers.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is correctly sectioned with a very detailed life cycle.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There isn't any images as yet. I'm guessing because there isn't any or they're copyright?
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable

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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?