User:Stefanija Kovacevic/Rhagoletis mendax/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? Stefanija Kovacevic
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stefanija Kovacevic/Rhagoletis mendax

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Somewhat- mainly provides a brief overview of life cycle and identification
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A little overly-detailed as life cycle will have a whole section devoted to it. It may be best to use some of the space in the lead to describe the economic impact and provide an overview of control tactics

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead contains important information about the identification and lifecycle of R. mendax, but fails to provide an overview of what will be covered in the article below. It would be helpful to add sentence summarizing the contents of the article. Additionally, it may be good to add a note on the economic impact of the pest so as to provide the reader with context for why this pest is so important.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Hasn't had much added, but so far the sections that will be added look good
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * N/a
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Lots of info still needs to be added

Content evaluation
The sections that are going to be added look like they do a good job of breaking the topic down into relevant subjects. Lots still needs to be added to flesh out this article

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
Good job! Keep up that neutral tone

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No in-text citations have been added thusfar
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are, one or two studies are from the early 2000's and could be replaced by similar, but more recent works
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes!

Sources and references evaluation
Just add some in-text citations and be sure to find some recent studies. I like that you re using lots of resources from university extension services and govt documents.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The lead is a little wordy and could use some more references. Also there is some unnecessary italicization of words such as "in their lifetime."
 * 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?
 * The sections that will be added look relevant and break the subject down into manageable chunks

Organization evaluation
Nicely done!

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Not yet! Still lots of info to be added
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Well-organized
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * In-text citations
 * No unnecessary italicization
 * Add more information for the sections that are currently blank

Overall evaluation
Hey Stef, it looks like you're off to a good start. The sections that you have laid out look like they will do a good job of breaking the subject down into relevant chunks. I would suggest using in-text citations as you write because it will be easier than adding them all at the end (no in-text citations in the lead yet). Additionally, I would avoid italicizing words that are not Latin binomials (ex. "in their lifetime" in the lead) as it reduces the neutrality of your tone. Finally, make sure that your lead/intro touches on some of the material that will be covered in the article below. Doing so will help tie the article together a bit better. Cheer, Anna