User:Ocsb1902/Background extinction rate/Stickystingray Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Ocsb1902
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ocsb1902/Background extinction rate
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Background extinction rate

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead was not updated. I think there could be one sentence about the five mass extinctions added into the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead introductory sentence does include a clear and concise description of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, there isn't a brief description of the preexisting 'Measurement' and 'Lifespan Estimates' sections. The new section that was added, 'The Five Mass Extinctions', would need a brief description as well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it doesn't.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that the original author made the Lead a bit too concise. While the editor didn't add to the Lead just yet, I think that valuable information was added that could potentially be briefly mentioned in the Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content added is up-to-date (2000 or later, rather than one article from 1996. However, because this citation involves the history, which does not change, I think this is okay).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there is not content that Is missing or content that doesn't belong. I think there could be more information before the table in the 'Lifespan Estimates' section if the editor can find further information (they didn't add this table).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the article doesn't deal with one of the equity gaps. It also doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that the Five Mass Extinctions section that was added by the editor could appear as overrepresented. I think it could appear this way because this new added section is so long, and the article itself without the edits is very short. However, to my knowledge, I think that the only way to add to this article and make it longer is to have this long section that provides valuable information. I also don't think there's any good way to make this section shorter.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added doesn't persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the new content has been backed up by reliable secondary sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources used reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I don't believe there are any historically marginalized individuals that need to be included.
 * 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.) Of the 12 sources used, only 5 are not peer-reviewed articles. I do not think that better sources are available for the information that was added, as the sections that are cited with articles that are not peer-reviewed also include a peer-reviewed article as well. The only exception for this is the source cited for how scientists calculate background extinction rate. The sentence this was cited for does not also include a peer-reviewed article citation. However, for the information that was cited, I couldn't find a peer-reviewed article that had similar contents.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links that I checked work. However, in the listed references section, the second and third reference are from the same source, so I would condense that into the same reference.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content added was well-written. The only notes I have are fixing the run-on sentences and some of the funky wording (see below). Otherwise, it was clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were little spelling errors. The only error I could find was "Scientist believe that we are currently in a six mass extinction.", which I believe was supposed to say scientists.
 * There are a few areas that I think could be touched up to avoid run on sentences. For example:
 * "There have been five mass extinctions since the beginning of time, a mass extinction can be described as when 75% of the species go extinct in a short period of time." I think there should be a period in between 'beginning of time' and 'a mass extinction'.
 * "This extinction was caused by an asteroid hitting the Earth and causing a mass explosion, which resulted in large amounts of material getting propelled into the atmosphere, which then reduced sunlight, and temperature, and productivity in oceans." I think there should be a period between 'into the atmosphere' and 'which then reduced'. The sentence could start with 'This reduced sunlight...'
 * "Both marine and land species were affected by this extinction, the marine species that suffered the most from this extinction were brachiopods, cephalopods, sponges, and corals, the land species that were affected were phytosaurs." I think there should be a period between 'this extinction' and 'the marine species'. I also think there could be a period between 'and corals' and 'the land species'.
 * "70% of species were lost during this extinction, important marine groups were lost, which included trilobites, tabulate and rugose corals, and the land species that were lost were the synapsids." I think there could be a period between 'this extinction' and 'important marine groups'.
 * "This extinction caused the disappearances of 70% to 80% of all marine organisms, the species included, stromatoporoids, corals, brachiopods, and groups of trilobites went extinct." I think there could be a period between 'marine organisms' and 'the species included'
 * "This extinction occurred 447 million years ago, most major animal groups survived which included trilobites, brachiopods, corals, crinoids, and graptolites." I think there could be a period between 'years ago' and 'most major animal'.
 * "This extinction is completely different from the others that have happened in the past though, this 6th mass extinction is caused by human activity, which is known as the industrial revolution." I think there could be a period between 'past though' and 'this sixth'
 * "Background extinction rates are typically measured in order to give a specific classification to a species and this is obtained over a certain period of time, there is three different ways to calculate background extinction rate." I think there could be a period between 'period of time' and 'there is three'
 * There are also a few areas that are a bit confusing to understand due to the wording. For example:
 * "A mass extinction can not be classified as a speed up of ecological succession because it completely wipes out most species ending future possibilities for evolutionary and ecological considerations that are associated with the different taxonomic groups." I think that this could be better worded as 'A mass extinction can not be classified as a sped up ecological succession...'
 * "It included many marine and land species and habitats, and all dinosaurs except non avian dinosaurs." could potentially be better worded as 'It included many marine species and land habitats, and all dinosaurs except those that are non-avian.' 
 * "This extinction was caused by the split up of the continents, and carbon dioxide was introduced, which led to the most severe event of global warming" could potentially be worded as 'This extinction was caused by the split up of the continents, in which carbon dioxide was introduced, leading to the most severe event of global warming'
 * "But these groups lost important members, families of trilobites and graptolites went almost completely extinct." could potentially be worded as 'But these groups lost important members, as families of trilobites and graptolites went almost completely extinct."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content added is well-organized. I would just ensure that the last short paragraph added goes into the 'Measurements' section, as it was not placed under the section header.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there are no images/media within the original article or the draft of the editor.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I think that the content added improved the overall quality of the article. The article is much longer now (which is good, it was really short), and provides useful/relevant information on the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added provides much more information on background extinction rate than what the original article held. The important information and sections were left in, and relevant information was added to them to aid in understanding. The new section that was added also provides much more information on this topic, but not too much, so that background extinction rate and its history can be be better understood.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that the only way the content added could be improved would be to fix the run-on sentences and funky wording that I mentioned in the 'Organization' section of the peer-review. Otherwise, it looks great :)

Analysis of Goals and Accomplishments
''' Goal 1: Adding more information to the sections about each topic to give depth (overview and measurements). '''

'''- I think that you were sufficient in meeting this goal, and agree that the original article was very bare. I think that the information you added to these sections were valuable, relevant, and added depth. To continue working on this goal, I would try adding more content to the 'Lifespan Estimates' section, as the only content in this section at the moment is a table.'''

 Goal 2: Add a new section 

- '''I think that you were sufficient in meeting this goal, and I think that the added section was useful for more background information and length throughout the article. I think that the section you added looks good, just needs a little work on the run-on sentences and funky wording.'''

'''Overall, I think that you analyzed the issues with the original article well and executed your goals appropriately. I think you have accurately assessed the extent to which you accomplished your goals. I don't think any additional goals need to be added, and think that this Wikipedia article will benefit from the edits you have made and the information you have added. My only recommendation to continue working on one of your goals is to add more to the 'Lifespan Estimates' section. Great job!! :)'''