User:Rehema.karanja/Echinus (sea urchin)/Katjstephens Peer Review


 * The Lead had been updated from the previous content, considering the original page had only one 7 word sentence.
 * The Lead introduces the topic and states what it is a genus of, could be a compound sentence but it gets immediately to the point of the article and clears up any confusion on what Echinus is.
 * The Lead acts more of an introduction with background information and does not include an outline of the articles main sections
 * The Lead does include information not present in the article but it is relevant background information
 * The Lead is concise
 * The content added is relevant to the topic
 * For the most part the content is up to date but the references list has 3 different references ranging from 50 years old to 120 years old
 * there is no content on reproduction or circulation, but considering the previous article had little to nothing down, I think the amount of content they were able to produce should be enough but if they were to add more that's what I would add
 * the content is neutral, unbiased and not over or under represented in any way
 * There is no positions or sides to this article, its not a persuasive document
 * All the content is backed up with reliable sources
 * The content accurately reflects what the sources are also saying
 * The sources are thorough
 * All but 3 sources are current
 * The links do work
 * The content added is well written, concise, clear and overall a great piece of written work
 * I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors
 * The content added is broken down into sections, the Lead and then 5 different main topics that they cover
 * One of the images caption only states its latin binomial, it should say the common name as well
 * The article does include images the are relevant and captivating
 * The images are laid out in a appealing manner to me
 * The images do adhere to wikipedias copyright policies

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)