User:Nzamel/Hymenolepis diminuta/Thierry97 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

 * Nzamel/Hymenolepis diminuta
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nzamel/Hymenolepis diminuta

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, its relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, just needs to be ordered under headings

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, key phrases like "research shows" is unbiased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there needs to be more info (Duh, its early)
 * 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? So far, yes but theres not alot of info
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The one that works was
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Source 1 doesn't work (couldn't get it to open for some reason), the second does

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Needs headings
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Needs Headings

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?No, adding images would help
 * 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.


 * 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?Good start, needs more info and headings
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Article could benefit from more broad info about the parasiten (morphology, life cylce, etc...)
 * How can the content added be improved?