User:Samuelkades/Aphonopelma chalcodes/ItsChowChow Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Samuelkades


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samuelkades/Aphonopelma_chalcodes?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aphonopelma chalcodes

Lead
The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic of the article. The lead includes descriptions of the article's major sections such as physiological description, habitat, reproduction, and development. It does not have information on danger and toxicity, and the life expectancy of the spider. Overall, the lead is concise but more information can be added on what the article will go into detail about.

Content
The new information on physiological description, geographical location, danger and toxicity, and life expectancy are all relevant to the topic. The sources were retrieved recently and they are up to date.

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral and non-biased. No attempts were made to persuade readers. Good balance of information.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by reliable sources. In-text citations are used in proper places. Most sources used are peer-reviewed articles. The sources are from a variety of authors. The links work but some of the sources could be outdated as they were written in the 1980s. Try to find more current sources.

Organization
The content is clear and easy to read. However, there are some minor grammatical errors. Ex - Adding "a" in front of stone. The content is well broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic but some of the sections lack information.

Images and Media
There are no new images added

Overall
The added content made the article more complete. The published article is lacking a lot of information on the physiological characteristics of the spider that you added. Some of the sections are lacking compared to others but I know it’s hard to find relevant sources. More recent sources would improve the article.