User:Plantlady890/Miss Kim Lilac/Melisejones Peer Review

General info
Plantlady890
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Plantlady890/Miss Kim Lilac

 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Miss Kim Lilac

Lead
The lead does a good job of covering some of the new topics introduced in the new draft. The overview could be expanded a small bit by including some of the information added about origin, such as the geographic location. In doing this, cut down on some of the information already present that isn't so important so that the lead does not become too wordy. Keep the lead concise. The lead also mentions that this species is endemic to Korea and Northeast China, so that should be in one of the sections, maybe "Origin." Or a new section specifically on geography can be added and more information on where this species can be found can be added. If so, make sure to cover this addition in the lead as well.


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes. the lead was initially very brief, but with the new information added the lead has been expanded as well to reflect this.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes. The introductory topic is bolded, but it has not been changed from the initial article. If it still works for the purposes of the lead, that is fine, but you could write it to better fit with the added information, if you want to make it sound more like your own writing.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead mentions that this species is endemic to Korea and Northeast China, so that should be in one of the sections, maybe "Origin." Or a new section specifically on geography can be added and more information on where this species can be found can be added. If so, make sure to cover this addition in the lead as well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: The lead does a good job of covering some of the new topics introduced in the new draft. The overview could be expanded a small bit by including some of the information added about the origin, such as the geographic location.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: In finding new information, cut down on some of the information already present that isn't so important so that the lead does not become too wordy. Keep the lead concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: All content added is related to the species being discussed.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: The information has more to do with physical attributes and location, so all information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: It would be interesting to include information that has recently been discovered, if there is any. The article could benefit from having a section dedicated to a specific topic, such as pollination or uses for the plant. While no obvious information is missing, it would be nice, again, to have information that isn't too general so the audience can know more about some of the properties that are special in this plant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: In searching for sources, you could work on finding information from an underrepresented population while you're at it.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?: No opinion is being pushed in this article, so all added content is neutral and does not point toward one position or the other.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no subjects in the article that would entail holding any sort of opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: While there are not any viewpoints that are overrepresented, the article does not contain any claims coming from any particular people or groups, so finding more information specifically coming from one group of people and their research can help broaden the representation through this article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No, the content is neutral, but if any information is added from specific research projects or papers, make sure not to sound as if the writing is leaning in one way or another. Just give the information as it is.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: While all information is backed up by sources, the list of references could benefit from having links to scientific papers. You might be able to find research articles looking into a content gap that could bring up topics focused on information that had to be derived from further study. It is nice to provide the reader with information they can't gather from just looking at the plant. This could be information such as pollination, history, dispersal, population characteristics, ideal habitat conditions, etc.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.): Yes, most of the sources clearly spell out the information that is then presented in the article. In fact, you could even draw more information from some of the articles, such as the Extension Gardener site. You could add on to the location, physical attributes, pollination, and diseases.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: While the sources are thorough on a general basis, I think more sources looking into specific areas of knowledge will be more exhaustive because they can look into one specific topic regarding the plant, allowing for more detail and focus to be put into a small feature.
 * Are the sources current?: Yes, all sources are current and relevant. However, the article could benefit from recent research as well.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: For some of the sources the authors are not explicitly stated, so it is hard to tell whether the authors cover a diverse spectrum. Assuming they do not, when adding more information according to the notes above, specifically look for sources that come from authors from underrepresented communities or backgrounds. This is a good way to fill the equity gap.
 * 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.): Some sources to get you started: https://digitalscholarship.tnstate.edu/agricultural-and-environmental-sciences-faculty/260/ when talking about population threats or disease, https://meridian.allenpress.com/jeh/article/31/2/63/79822/Root-and-Shoot-Responses-of-Miss-Kim-Lilac-to when talking about environmental responses, and https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200410103462719.page for herbicidal activity. This last source can be good for filling the equity gap. Be sure to look for sources that are different from the kinds of "garden" or "library" websites already used in the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: Yes, all links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: The information should be made into paragraphs from the bullet points, but other than that, the writing is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No obvious spelling errors. Sometimes the grammar can be a bit clunky, so just practice reading the article out loud and revise when sentences seem too long or too short or the punctuation is incorrect. Watch out specifically for missing commas.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: I would reorganize the information in the article so that one section leads into another. For example, I would have the flower description first, since that is the first thing people notice about a plant. Include in this section the bloom season subheading. And then have that lead into the plant description, then the fruit, and so on. Make sure the sections make sense in relation to the surrounding ones so it is an easy reading for the audience.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Several images have been added. Although, the images do not immediately draw in the reader because they are at the end of the article, so I would put some at the beginning as well, so that they serve as a draw for readers.
 * Are images well-captioned?: The captions capture what is in the photograph, but some of them are only a few words and may need some more detail. You can include things like the surroundings, the life stage, where the plant is, if you know, etc.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they are taken from the image-insert that takes images from Wikipedia's database.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: All of the images are concentrated at the end of the article, so I would suggest scattering them throughout the article where appropriate, like if there is a section that talks about one of the images in particular. That way, the audience can immediately see what is being referenced instead of going to the bottom of the page to see it. I would also make the images a little larger.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Considering that the article began with only the first few sentences of the lead, the article has certainly been improved. The article is much more complete in terms of the basic information filled out, the linking to other Wikipedia articles (look for more opportunities to do this) so that this article is more integrated, and the added visuals not only make the page nicer to look at, but it is also easier for the reader to understand what they are reading.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: There is lots of descriptive language, which is very helpful for the reader. The level of detail is done well. The breaking up of the sections into many smaller sections is also a good feature so that there aren't massive walls of text to read.
 * How can the content added be improved?: Make the writing more professional (paragraphs, smooth, consistent grammar), and include more sources from a variety of authors who worked on scientific or academic journals. Having information that is highly detailed and studied makes this article something worth reading, and differentiates it from any other website talking about the basics of the plant. More people will want to visit your article.