User:Samanthabrailsford/Reductive Evolution/Graemebeatie 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? (provide username) samanthabrailsford
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Samanthabrailsford/Reductive Evolution

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, this is a new article so the lead was made to reflect the information provided.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is an introductory sentence summarizing the idea.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, there is description of the topic, but not of the sections explored in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information in the lead is discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Somewhere in the middle.

Lead evaluation
This is a new article so the lead was made to reflect the information provided and gives a good summary of the article concept. There is no description of the article's major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Mostly
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?There is some missing still

Content evaluation
The content in the article is relevant and up to date. The discussion of genome size and complexity is related, but there could be some connection to the main idea. Why is this important? There are a few things missing. The article mentions that there are many phases but only discusses one briefly.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and there is a balance of information. There is no bias toward any single viewpoint.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are a lot of references listed and most are current. There are not any articles from the last 10 years. Not all information in the article body is associated with a reference. All links work and sources are appropriate for Wikipedia.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There could be some minor proofreading done for grammar and punctuation. Overall the information is well organized, but connections to the main concept could be more clear.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The image added increases understanding of the article and is visually appealing. There is not an associated caption or reference.

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
There are a lot of other articles linked so it is very discoverable. There are plenty of independent sources that meet the Notability requirements. The article follows general construction of other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This is a new article so the information adds to the completeness of the article. The content is well summarized and easy to follow. There could be more content about the different things listed in the article and some clearer connections between the information and the main idea.