User:Raphifounette/Geodia megastrella/JimmyCoyle71201 Peer Review

Lead questions- The lead is clear and concise. It includes all of the necessary information except outlining other major sections of the paper. Though after seeing other articles and also taking this whole article into account, I think the way it is now is good. The table of contents is just below it, so that fills in the gap.

Content questions- I found that all of the articles were relevant. Some articles seem to be more useful than others, but assuming they ran into the same problem Gabe and I did(very little species-specific literature) then I think it is fine. One of the articles cited is from the 1800's so it is not really up to date, but it is the first account of the species so I think it is still useful to use.

Tone and Balance- I think the article is very neutral. There was no indication any bias was involved.

Sources and References- One of the sources is entirely in French, so I am assuming one of them is a native speaker. It seems like the first three sources were the most relevant ones because all of the rest are only cited once and multiple are cited at the same place. Doing basic searches online showed that they too had a hard time finding good sources. A lot of online sources contained repeated information and is very short and vague. All of the links work.

Organization- The content added makes sense and is concise. I don't think any revisions are needed for this aspect.

Images- They have two images. The first image caption could use a better caption, but in all honestly having the name of the sponge sums up the picture pretty well. The second image has a better caption.

New Article questions- It has more than 3 reliable sources. They have seven listed sources. They include a couple links in the lead, but including links on the specific locations where they are found would make the article more discoverable.

Overall impressions- I think the article is very good. I think the layout makes it aesthetically pleasing and clear. I don't think there is a whole lot of stuff to improve.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Raphifounette & Anki268822


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Geodia megastrella


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Geodia megastrella

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I added the correct citation to information they included in the wiki page. I also added some comments to their talk page because some of what they said and a source did not agree, but I did not change it because they were very minor discrepancies. I thought their organization of the page was really good as well.- Jimmy Coyle