User:Sokmleopard/Pinus elliottii/Ryl3rs0n Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * (Sokmleopard)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sokmleopard/Pinus elliottii
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pinus elliottii
 * Pinus elliottii

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes - fusiform rust important to those learning about pinus elliotti
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Can't really tell from what is currently available - no dates or citations with dates
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Explaining why fusiform rust is relevant on the Pinus elliottii page may be useful
 * history of the disease - is this a new problem or one that's been around?

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes - and very entertaining to read! great job writing to the general public rather than for a publication
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No - all seems just factual and informative - no suggested right or wrong way of doing things

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 2 references listed, but no citation or links - try and re-link these!
 * could manually input complete citation in references even if it won't link!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Can't tell based on what's available now.
 * Just an opinion, but one more citation may be beneficial to edits - 3 foundational studies on the management of fusiform rust
 * Are the sources current?
 * Unsure. Seems like this was information you were very familiar with in class, so I'm sure they are!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Already mentioned, but the links weren't working on my end, so try and fix!

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes! This is what I was most impressed by in your draft. Your writing was advanced and used strong vocabulary, but it wasn't speaking in terms that someone outside of the field wouldnt understand. The way you structured your writing was also entertaining almost like telling a story. Great job!!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes - clear flow of ideas and explained things in a step by step manner which I really enjoyed

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * the original article has a picture that I think should stay!
 * maybe consider adding a picture similar to what you showed in your presentation! I've never seen anything like that
 * the picture made it easier to grasp the 'rust' concept and made it more memorable (if you have time of course!

"Overall - amazing job! The paragraph you contributed about fusiform rust was entertaining to read, easy to understand, and very informative. My only suggestions would be to get the two citations fixed + potentially add a third citation (if you feel it would be beneficial). If you have time, a picture of the disease in a later stage would definitely make the topic more memorable and draw people in, but it is not needed to make your edits a strong contribution!"