User:Taguzman1/Rheotaxis/ChaseTerry548440 Peer Review

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

-Yes.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

-The first sentence mentions positive rheotaxis but not any other rheotaxis. I like the sentence but, should there be a more encompassing sentence to start the article off?

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

-I feel as if many of the things mentioned in the second paragraph would help make the beginning paragraph more of a solid lead that could go into positive rheotaxis.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

- no

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

- it is a concise and right to the point introduction. I would maybe add a few more details.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

- yes, all the content is relative and adds more to the understanding of the topic on hand.

Is the content added up-to-date?

- yes, majority of the sources used are 5 years or younger, however, the other sources are fine as well.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

- I don't know anything about rheotaxis but since there is positive rheotaxis is there negative as well? would it be relevant to add or is this something that doesn't pertain to your topic?

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

- yes

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

- it is neutral with the exception of one sentence. "It generally thought of as a positive influence". Should this section be added? I understand that this is trying to convey a point but I don't know if this is considered neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- nothing except what I stated above.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- When talking about mechanisms, would it be helpful to break down a few of the rheotaxis mechanisms for things such as positive and negative? Or would this add to much clutter to the article?

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?

- many of your sentences only have one source to them, maybe finding other sources to back this up would help.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

-yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

- yes

Are the sources current?

- Like mentioned above these are all pretty new being 5 years or less old so I would say this information is current.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?

- Sure

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work?

- I tried clicking on the links in your bibliography but they weren't working, It might be an issue on my end however.

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

- yes very clear and too the point, might need a little more information though.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

- none that I caught

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

yes for the most part. I would personally add more to the first paragraph with content from the second paragraph but if that disrupts the flow I understand.

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

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

For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

- there is only ten sources, but this is a new article so more sources are expected to be added eventually.

Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added?

- I enjoy how quick and easy it is too read through this article. Wonderfully quick and too the point. Doesn't drag out anything it doesn't need too and doesn't bore me. I like the way this is written and I think many others would agree with me!

How can the content added be improved?

- Some of your sentences don't have sources after them, not all of them have too but, there were a few sentences that needed sources in my opinion. The first paragraph is great but, I don't know if the first sentence sits well. Its a solid sentence but, it might need another sentence to start it off. Like I mentioned before many of your sentences didn't have sources. Its all good if you are still adding sources in because you are trying to make this project good however, I would keep in mind that you might need some more citations. I would also figure out a way to link the citation to the bibliography so its easier for people to find the sources.

- Overall this was well put together and easy to understand! Just a few things I would fix here and there in order to improve the article.

ChaseTerry548440 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Chase Terry