User:Seba5..Zed8/Blue stain fungi/Annawesthaver4340 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? Seba5..Zed8
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Seba5..Zed8/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No lead is included in the sandbox, howver there is a lead in the original article (Blue stain fungi). This has not yet been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not yet
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not yet
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is very little connection between the lead and the rest of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Lead evaluation
Still needs a bit of work. I would recommend starting off with naming some of the causal agents of blue stain fungus, as well as provide a brief note on its movement between hosts, as well as economic impact. This will help frame the information that will be included later in the article and convince the reader that it is worthwhile to learn about this topic

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It appears to be- there really isn't much to update when it comes to biology and taxonomy of the fungus. Perhaps it would be a good idea to find some recent sources to help flesh out the section regarding trade problems caused by blue stain fungus
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content of this article would benefit from the addition of several up-to-date sources. Doing so would help provide a broader base of knowledge regarding this topic for the reader.

Content evaluation
Still needs some work. If I were you I would focus on creating some more sections, finding some sources related to those sections, and then using information from those sources to flesh out the sections.

A side note- I would shorten the subtitles so that they are a bit snappier. For example... "Importance of the symbiotic relationship between blue stain fungi and bark beetles" could simply be shortened to "Symbiosis with Insect Vectors"

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
Tone is neutral and purely informative

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not necessarily, some more references would be much appreciated, especially when it comes to describing the relationship between the pathogen and its insect vectors. Perhaps there is a study on dispersal methods of BSF in forest ecosystems? Additionally, resources to better support the description of how the pathogen impacts its host would be great. Maybe a paper from a plant physiologist or pathologist? Does the American Phytopathological Society have anything on this topic?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not yet- more references need to be added.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
More references need to be added. Also, would be great if you could find some more peer-reviewed literature for your reference section. At the moment you have one paper, as well as powerpoint, and a govt doc. Adding more peer reviewed papers will give this article greater credibility and increase its breadth.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Fairly clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A couple grammatical errors, mainly run-on sentences
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are only two sections at the moment

Organization evaluation
Good start to your organization.

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
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?
 * Yes- the original article did not cover the method of pathogen dispersal at all. It also alluded to the economic impacts of BSF, but did not necessarily elaborate on that thought. I am glad that Sebastian has chosen to fill these two knowledge gaps as I feel that they are critical to understanding the importance of this pathogen in forest ecosystems.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is relevant and well-organized
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More (peer-reviewed) references, a bit more fleshing out in some parts of the article, and shortening the subtitles would be great. Also, I know this is pedantic but if you could convert some of the key links in your article to hot links (example Ophiostoma ulmi ---> Ophiostoma ulmi), that could help readers look into related topics and get them thinking about BSM in the broader context of plant pathology and forestry.

Overall evaluation
This is off to a good start, it just needs some more structuring and information. You've got this!