User:Ortiz.carolina/Christensenella/Thunderclaw2 Peer Review

General info
Ortiz.carolina
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ortiz.carolina/Christensenella
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Christensenella

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, in general
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, since the article is only one section and 5 sentences long
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, there is no other information in the draft article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is fairly concise, but would be improved by adding brief information about other sections (which should be added to the article)

Lead evaluation
''The lead is in good shape now, but you really need to add more sections. As it is right now, there is not a lot of information at all. The main article contains a good chunk of info which you could use as a starting point and break into multiple sections, expanding on what is in the article now.''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * N/A, there is no content other than the lead
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * N/A, there is no content other than the lead
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * N/A, there is no content other than the lead
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
''As stated before, more information should be added and broken down into separate sections. The published article has information and sources which can be used as a framework.''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but there is only one reference in the user's draft
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
As written so far, the article is neutral and professionally-written.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The user's article draft has only one source. Additional sources to back up what is already written should be included, along with additional sources highlighting other aspects of the organism which should be added in other sections.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * See above about only having one source
 * Are the sources current?
 * See above about only having one source
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * See above about only having one source
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No links are included in the author's sandbox draft

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, but not enough information is present in the draft to provide meaningful feedback
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not enough information is present in the draft to provide meaningful feedback
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are no sections, and not enough information to glean any major points about the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The draft article and the original article do not have any images. They would certainly help, and I would recommend adding a picture.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The draft article is a good starting point, but requires more information from a variety of new sources.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * As stated, the current draft works as a good lead, but more information should be included.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * See above
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * See above, draft article is quite underdeveloped, but main article has a decent amount of research and references to work from.