User:Sbrobbchavez/Corbicula fluminea/Camille.cain 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/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Some information added, but mostly not updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes and it describes the species well
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat, but some descriptions are not present in following sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, such as reproduction and diet
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead does go on, could be shortened

Lead evaluation
Lead looks alright, but info mentioned in it is not present in the sections and it could be edited to be shorter.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It is relevant, there could be more information on some other parts of the species
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It does seem up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be more information on the biology of the species and less of the impacts.

Content evaluation
Great discussion on the invasive species impacts and native behaviors, but could use more on the biology of the species that was mentioned in the lead.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * A lot of the article seems to focus on the invasive impacts of the species
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not biased but extensive on the overall impacts of the species
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * See above comments
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not

Tone and balance evaluation
While it is great to discuss the negative impacts of an invasive species, there is more to the clam that just that.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It seems to be, but there are no sources outlined
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Could be more thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources I could find seem current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No links available

Sources and references evaluation
Off to a good start on sources, but don't forget to add them to the article so they can be viewed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content is easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Could not see any obvious errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Organized well

Organization evaluation
Good start to organization, hope there can be more subject sections added to improve it.

Images and Media (N/A)
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 (N/A)
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Still a work in progress, but is definitely more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Information is organized well and is easy to understand, and the impacts of the species invasively is well put
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More information on the species itself rather than the impacts, and don't forget to add sources into the article with reflist

Overall evaluation
Article is a good start, and could use some more information on the clam itself, even though it is good to understand the negative impacts it brings.