User:Staveras25/Osedax/BrookeBarlow 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) Staveras25
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Staveras25/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not yet although I'm not sure if the proposed edit will be going into the lead itself or if they are planning on creating a new section regarding the Osedax's diet
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes and no. It includes nothing about their reproduction in the lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise. I think it could use more detail in it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. I think it is relevant information that the article would benefit from having included.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there could be more content regarding their diet or perhaps where they live.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but there is a warning on the article itself saying the article is largely unverified due to a lack of corresponding inline citations and a list of general references. I would recommend that those working on this project go through the article and insert inline citations wherever they are lacking.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I don't believe so. More current information must be included because I'm sure more is known about the Osedax now and therefore there is more information to include.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No there is not much past 2010, and since science moves so fast I'm sure that there are more articles and papers about the Osedax now.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I don't believe so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some work and some don't

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. I think it will fit in well with what is already there.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are no sections yet just a few sentences but so far so good! I believe the sentences there could be put into a section labeled Diet.

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


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

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes I believe that it is important to mention aspects the article did not previously cover so adding information regarding their diet and how they are involved in whale falls.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It adds an important comparison between other animals and the bone worms in relation to their roles at a whale fall.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think some information about where they live (or where scientists currently think they live anyway) could be helpful to improving this article if you can find any information about that and then you could add a section about habitat.