User:Staveras25/Osedax/Lbenedict 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? LONGYC6, 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?
 * No, however, there is only one additional piece of information in the sandbox, and it might not fit well in the lead, but could be useful elsewhere in the article, such as in a new section about feeding habits
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Maybe you guys could talk a little more about the diet?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise and well-written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, and I actually think having more information about the diet (even more than the source included in the sandbox) would be extremely beneficial to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes; it's from 2017
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content that doesn't belong, but missing information on diet
 * Could also the bacterial symbionts we talked about in class
 * 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?
 * Unsure because the top of the article says that everything is not verified
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think so
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sandbox Draft: Yes; from 2017
 * But, only have one source
 * Article: Not super outdated, as all are from the 2000s, but also not super current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Regarding the Sandbox Draft: Only see one source, so cannot say
 * Add more from the rest of the bibliography
 * Authors in the original article seem to be diverse
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some do and some don't
 * I would go through and check the sources and verify all the information

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No content has currently been added, but from the draft, it is written well and easy to read!
 * 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?
 * Only two sentences, so can't really say
 * Maybe add some more information

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?
 * Would definitely help make the article more complete, but should expand on this idea so that an entire section can be dedicated to diet
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Adresses a topic that was barely mentioned in the original article
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more information in general
 * The article is somewhat short, so can talk about diet, bacterial symbionts
 * What did the other sources you looked at for your annotated bibliography cover? You could add more information on those topics, too
 * Also, work on verifying the provided information! I think that's the biggest issue with the current Wikipedia article

==== Overall evaluation: 8/10 (biggest problem bringing this down is that a lot of the current information is unverified, but the one source provided is well written and would fit really well in with the test!) ====