User:SarahBoujan/Anopodium ampullaceum/Angelajhyb Peer Review

Peer review
Peer Review by: Jihyeun Angela Baek (Angelajhyb)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? SarahBoujan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SarahBoujan/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
==== We are missing a lead. '''I'm not sure if because this was just supposed to be an outline that you didn't write a separate introductory paragraph, but a brief introduction to your fungus species would be a great start to your article! For instance, providing us with a brief profile on your fungus species at the very beginning that includes some of its most key or unique points and details summarized would be very helpful!'''====

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation:
The content you've provided us with is very relevant to your fungus species - well done!

'''Is there information available on your fungus species' effects on humans or animals, if there are any pathogenic qualities to your fungus species? I.e., does your fungus species cause any diseases or allergies in humans, animals, or plants? If you do find any information about that, adding this to your article would be very helpful!'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation:
Good work on making your content have a neutral tone!

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:
The fact, "discovered in Sweden", under "History and taxonomy", needs '''a source link. But otherwise, great job on backing up all your facts with a source!'''

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:
What about changing the heading of your section "Physiology" to "Morphology" instead, since you tell us more about the structure, shape and appearance of your fungus species?

I also think you could probably omit the point "found in rabbit and hare dung" from under "Physiology", since you've already put it in two other places in your article (under "History and taxonomy" and "Environment").

Lastly, make sure to go over one more time in checking grammar and spelling, such as adding commas where necessary and double-checking spelling of keywords like "globouse" (I couldn't find that word anywhere online, but maybe this is a real, old, scientific word that actually exists. Or, did you mean perhaps "globose" or "globus"?).

But most of all, lovely job on your writing throughout your outline - it is clear, concise and easy to understand!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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 seems to be only one secondary source. If possible, finding at the very least one or two more sources would improve your article's credibility. The more, the better for your article, I think. It's hard to find sources, but even sources on, e.g., the close species you mentioned - Pleurae dagonerii or Anopodium epile, or your fungus species' genus - Anopodium, and any other relevant "side information" surrounding your fungus species or on the information you discuss could lend your article more sources, if it's nearly impossible to find sources specific to your fungus species.''' ==== If there are any existing Wikipedia articles that you can add a link to various key terms or ideas in your article, please do so!

==== '''Lastly, well done on your infobox and section headings! Only one thing - I think the second parts to species' names have to start with a lowercase letter (e.g., "A. ampullaceum", not "A. Ampullaceum").''' ====

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: Wonderful job on your outline, my dear! Adding a lead paragraph, finding a few more sources, and double-checking grammar and spelling would be a great start to your revising process. For next time, adding anything else you find on your fungus species to your article would greatly enrich it and be very helpful, providing us with more content and information. ====