User:Such0051/Iron Springs Bog SNA/Caffeinatedmicrobe Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ianccoff, Such0051


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Such0051/Iron Springs Bog SNA
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Iron Springs Bog SNA

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes the lead nicely introduces rare flora and fauna found at the site and introduces that research is done there it could introduce the ecology section a bit more though.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes this is quite good
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes its missing the ecology section though and the research part is only lightly alluded too.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no not that I can tell
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * nice and concise I would just add a bit more on the research as an intro and I would talk a little more about the ecology.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes I think so at least
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes the sources added are relatively recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think so
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * not necessarily but some addressing of the indigenous communities who are native to the area is important.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * I would recommend adding information about the native communities of this area.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

sourcing is quite good and is full of reliable literature. the links seem to work well.

Organization
Guiding questions:

It is well organized grammar and spelling are correct and organizational layout looks nice.

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

The images are laid out well and are captioned well as far as I know they are adhering to the copyright rules.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes the content is very helpful and in depth
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the research section is one of its strengths I really like the detail added while still remaining general enough for a broad audience.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * adding a bit more context to the lead would make what things are in the article a bit clearer