User:Pacanins22/Dicosmoecus gilvipes/Lindsey.Goldsby 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Pacanins22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pacanins22/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I do not think the lead reflects the content of the article yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence seems suitable.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kind of, because it says the organism is found in North America and that is not explicitly stated in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is under-detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything seems relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Some of the sources seem a bit dated, but I do not know enough about caddisflies to know if more information has been learned since then. If so, more recent sources are probably necessary.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I belive a lot more content could be added, so I would say content is missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * 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? Yes, it looks like it. Except possibly the life cycle information which is going to be added which comes from a website. I am not sure if the website is reliable. But, I did notice that the website has a sources cited section, so maybe those sources could be looked at to find the information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I feel like their is probably more literature available than the 7 or so articles cited.
 * Are the sources current? Some are a bit dated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Everything seems okay except the anatomy section seems a bit difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did notice a few places where the grammar could be improved.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but I feel like the sections could be improved by following the guides that Wikipedia created for writing articles about species. Then, some of the headings would actually be sub-headings in other sections. I think that following Wikipedia's guidelines would probably result in an article with better balance.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * 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

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? I do not know how to tell if this was a new article, but we were supposed to work with an article which was pre-existing, so I am going to assume that it is not new.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This must have been a very bare article before, so I think that any content you add will be an improvement!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You have a good start and you have a few different sections of information which you are adding which is great.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think one major improvement would be following the section guidelines provided by Wikipedia for writing about a species.

Overall evaluation
This is a good start! Maybe just work on finding more sources to further supplement the information you have found so far and reorganizing the headings to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.