User:Pmatel16/Planktothrix/Lberkowicz 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?
 * Pmatel16
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Planktothrix

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, each of the major sections is briefly mentioned
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, and gives a good overview of what is covered in the article

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * The content is well written and concise. It is easy to read, other than a few terms every once in a while that a layman may not understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors. However, there is a sentence near the end of the lead paragraph that is fully italicized, and I think this was a mistake made after the first words were italicized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized and the sections all point to an important aspect of the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * The content has definitely improved the overall quality of the article. There is more information on many aspects of these organisms, and each of the new/adjusted sections of the article have fixed what the previous version lacked. The broken links in the species section were fixed and more species and citations for each were added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is very thorough and covers all of the questions that may be asked about this organism. It is well written and easy to follow, and it is thoroughly cited whenever a source would be necessary.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * One main thing I saw was that there were a lot of terms used that some people searching for this article may not know, including "planktic, benthic, or biphasic", "mucilaginous envelopes", and "protoplasts". Just adding links to these words or explaining them slightly can make this easier to understand for those not as experienced in our field.