User:Pitandpendulum/Atlantic surf clam/MillyA1116 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Pitandpendulum


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pitandpendulum/Atlantic surf clam - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Atlantic surf clam - Wikipedia

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. The first sentence was left unchanged.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Yes. Unnecessary information from the original article was deleted from the lead. The Lead is now much more concise and summarizes only the main points about the surf clam.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Mostly. A couple sources might be outdated; one is from 1981 and another is even older, from 1968.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No. All new information flows well.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, it does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Some viewpoints are underrepresented. The section about human use, for instance, was significantly shorter than the other sections, and it was shorter than it was in the original article.
 * 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.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes. The content is reflected accurately.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes.
 * Are the sources current? - Some of the sources are outdated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - No.
 * 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.) - While other sources exist, the sources that were used were sufficient.
 * 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? - Yes. The content is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are errors occasionally. There are often commas where there don't need to be. Ex: "It is commonly found in the western Atlantic Ocean, and is one of the most common species of bivalves found in the Northeast." There does not to be a comma after "ocean" because the second part of the sentence does not start with an object noun.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, it is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - No. An image of a clam from the original article was deleted.
 * Are images well-captioned? - There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - There are no images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? - Yes, the content has made the article more concise overall.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The content is much more clear, relevant, and better organized.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The article already flows better, but it would flow even better if it was cleared of grammatical errors.