User:Sbrobbchavez/Corbicula fluminea/Calynneweewie 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) Sbrobbchavez
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sbrobbchavez/Corbicula fluminea

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? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it is well laid out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the last bit about them in the markets is not reintroduced.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a bit overly detailed, perhaps condensing it to one or two paragraphs would help/

Lead evaluation
The lead is really thorough, almost too thorough. Suggestion: leave some of the specifics for the following paragraphs and make the into more lay language-y.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the new citations are from the later 2010's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There didn't seem to be any information that did not belong, and areas where content was missing it is indicated.

Content evaluation
Solid content added, seemingly reliable and accurate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the information was presented factually.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, where were no claims that seemed to have bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like a solid paragraph was enough
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources cited are peer reviewed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, from the late 2010's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
Great job!

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


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

Images and media evaluation
Some added images could he helpful, your species sounds really cool so maybe photos showing of their unique characteristic.

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? Yes
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, this added a lot of information to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information is very factual and well explained. There is enough information for complete ideas to be presented, which they are..
 * How can the content added be improved? Yes.

Overall evaluation
I thought there was a lot of good information presented in a really professional and appropriate manner. Maybe try to put less detail in the lead and spread it over your new paragraphs. It looks great, I'm glad I got to review yours so I can make improvements to mine.