User:Tedvogel/Penghu 1/Dhern041 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? Tedvogel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Tedvogel/Penghu 1

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
'' REVIEW:  The Lead in the original article was already quite lengthy, but the author did rephrase one sentence of the lead. This rephrasing made it easy to understand the content and background of the article. The only change I would suggest is to include a brief description of the article's major sections. This will let the reader know what is to come. Overall, the Lead is mostly clear and concise and only needs a few changes.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
''REVIEW: The author added relevant content to the topic. The sections added were missing in the original article, and this information provides the reader more background. All of the content seems to be up to date and gives reader a wide range of viewpoints.'' This can be clearly seen in the "Classification" section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
'' REVIEW:  All of the content that was added was neutral and unbiased. It is clear that the author wanted to include multiple viewpoints to give the reader as much information as possible. The "Classification" section is a perfect example of an unbiased and neutral section. The article is in no way leaning towards a certain position, and there are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. All of the content added is neutral and does not favor one theory.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'' REVIEW:  It seems like most sections are backed up by reliable sources. The only section that is missing more sources is "Fossil Morphology." This section should include more sources with more information to make sure it includes all possible literature on this topic. The sources added by the author are all very current and reflect the topic literature available. After clicking a few links, I can confirm they are working properly.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
'' REVIEW:  All of the content added by the author is well-written and organized well. Every section added is clear, concise, and easy to read. The content also reflects professional writing that contains no grammatical or spelling errors. The addition of the section provides the reader with an easy-to-read article with broken down information.''

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


 * 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?

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?

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?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'' REVIEW:  Overall, all of the content added has greatly improved the quality of the article. Before, the article lacked key details and background information. After the additions from the author, the article is more complete. The addition of sections in the article strengthened it by adding more information and breaking down topics. The only thing I would suggest is adding more information in the "History and Discovery" and "Fossil Morphology" sections. These sections could also be improved by providing a more wide-range of sources.''